Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom
Actually, the Church can rightfully claim authorship at of least the New Testament, because all authors of the New Testament were Christians. Surely you'd agree the Church is competent to recognize its own! But the Church is also the author of the codex you call the Christian Bible, as the selection of books that were to be read exclusively was made by the Church hierarchy.

Well, you are dealing with individual writings as well as a compilation, and although the writings themselves were not the work of a committee, it is true that the church whose members penned these books and who complied which books it considered worthy of publishing with the Divine stamp could claim a type of copyright status. Likewise bodies of Jews could, regarding those books they held as Scripture, in particular the Law and the whole Palestinian canon, which the writings that the church held to as Scripture indicates Jesus held to, (Luke 24:44, etc.) and to whom it says the covenants, the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises pertained.

And consistent with this, those who complied somewhat differing NT lists could be considered authors, while what the whole compilation would consist of was not finally, fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, as we have hitherto discussed.

However, while your here points can be basically acknowledged, there is more to it than the instrumentality by which Scriptures were codified.

So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition

And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis?

The banal argument that the body of believers gradually came to accept the correct books that we have today is not supported by historical documents. It is a myth

It certainty is not that simple, but what is a myth is a bunch of men sitting around and deciding what would make the best novel. There certainly was an ecclesiastical process which most are ignorant of, but I posit that both the selection and enduring acceptance of the books which are most universally held to be Scripture was essentially due to an inherent quality of these writings, including its conflation with the prior established scriptures, and the faith of its accompanying Tradition, and its effects when believed. Therefore not only church fathers but those who could ask our Scriptures came to progressively realize what was manna from heaven. While the FDA may put its stamp of approval on certain things, their enduring popularity is due to their effects.

And while it is true that some three hundred years after Christ most local churches contained almost all the books of the Christian Bible, they also contained many heretical ones which is a detail most Christian apologetics today choose to ignore or don't know.

True, and Jesus said that the tares most be allowed to grow along with the wheat, and by comparison with writings that were was previously established as Divine, among other factors, helped to separate the two has concerns their ultimate author.

So, the theological basis and the actual codification of the Christian Bible to the exclusion of all other books took place in the Catholic Church and under Catholic Church's episcopal authority, and not, as the Protestants confabulate,  through some sui generis "spiritual" guidance of the lay believers.

It certainly would be a mistake to imagine the latter, as it also would be to suppose that it was they who gave these writings their real authority and appeal, and that these choices to place apart from the qualities of these writings and their effects and appeal to believers. If so, they contradict what the very writings they agreed upon testify of, as well as multitudes more since that time, without constraint or compulsion.

So, it is really disingenuous for the Protestants to insist that the Church has no spiritual authority when it comes to scriptures, when it is clear that the they accept, by necessity, the decision of the Church as to what constitutes Christian canon.

No, as while the church corporate was responsible for the writing of New Testament Scripture, and its councils for,the compilation of all books which it holds as constituting it, this presumes

1. that being the instruments through whom Scripture is written, and being the stewards of it renders them to be assuredly infallible autocratic interpreters of it, as Rome effectively supposes it is, rather than themselves being subject to it, which the Lord Jesus showed the Pharisees they were to be. Consistent with the authorship/stewardship=authority logic, than the first Christians should have submitted to the Jews. Which you probably agree with.a

2. that the authority of the early church is established by formal historical lineage, rather than scriptural faith, which Scripture attests is the case. It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)

Clearly, he [Luke] togive all credit to himself and other humans, but not to God.

I put this here because it is related to your consistent rejection of God working through men, making it all their work. Certainly this was not the understanding of Luke. (Acts 1:1-3)

5,427 posted on 12/15/2010 5:24:02 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5417 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom
although the writings themselves were not the work of a committee

Some of the writings are heavily "synchronized" (Synoptic Gospels) or heavily interpolated (the Gospel of John), for example. Luke himself admits admits to compiling what he heard from others and form research, rather than by the "divine inspiration." So, although no formal committee took place as far as we know, the writings are evidently the result of multiple sources and multiple contributors.

it is true that the church whose members penned these books and who complied which books it considered worthy of publishing with the Divine stamp could claim a type of copyright status

Thank you. Maybe the Protestant crowd will now stop mocking the Church for claiming author of the Christian Bible. Not only does the Church have the copyright on the New Testament, but is the exclusive publisher of the compiled books of Both Testaments, otherwise known as the Christian Bible, as well.

while what the whole compilation would consist of was not finally, fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, as we have hitherto discussed.

We've had this discussion before I am not going into another marathon race again on it. The canon was set in the west by the end of the 4th century and approved by the pope at the onset of the 5th. The west abided by that canon all the way until Trent when, with a minor relabeling of a couple of books of the OT deuterocanonicals, it set the canon "ecumenically" in silence. The NT was not touched. In the East, the harry Potter book of Revelation, which was rejected in the East, was compromislingly accepted as (more like horse traded) as canonical, but is never to this day read liturgically in Eastern Churches.

However, while your here points can be basically acknowledged, there is more to it than the instrumentality by which Scriptures were codified.

...and (can you make it brief)? And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis? >[? What the Church considers the "Apostolic Faith," as expressed by the early Christian apologetics.

It certainty is not that simple, but what is a myth is a bunch of men sitting around and deciding what would make the best novel.

I thin that is an excellent description of it.

There certainly was an ecclesiastical process [in forming the canon by the Church] which most are ignorant of

I hope your fellow Protestants take note of this.

but I posit that both the selection and enduring acceptance of the books which are most universally held to be Scripture was essentially due to an inherent quality of these writings, including its conflation with the prior established scriptures, and the faith of its accompanying Tradition, and its effects when believed

I agree, except that the "quality" of the writing had to do with various additions and deletions, copying errors, etc. which eventually produced an internally somewhat consistent novel. Extant copies of variants show that to be so, and that a lot of manipulation and doctrinal "harmonizing" went into the final product.

5,460 posted on 12/16/2010 5:47:01 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5427 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom
True, and Jesus said that the tares most be allowed to grow along with the wheat

Of course he did. It's called covering all your bases. The Bible is full of such strategically placed comments.

Consistent with the authorship/stewardship=authority logic, than the first Christians should have submitted to the Jews. Which you probably agree with

Many did. Paul didn't, but Paul was an outsider, and his faction won, mainly because the Jewish Christians got kicked out of Israel and Judaism. The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible. If the presumed divine author of the scriptures gave stewardship to the Catholic Church, he also delegated the authority to be the guardian of what is in it and how it is interpreted, unless he took a "chance" hoping they'd get it right.  :)

It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)

And what makes Matthew or John the sons of Abraham? Is their faith equal to his? Do you know one Christian whose is willing to sacrifice his own children? As for John's Gospel, that was written at the end of the century with the explicit agenda to demonize the Jews. Matthew's rabid anti-Jewish sentiment is also considered one of the major factor for the rejection of Christianity in Israel.

And by the way, Jews don't believe in the devil, so Mat 3:9 is obviously not only unfriendly but theologically alien to the Jews. Obviously it wasn't written to win hearts and minds but, in retrospect, as an attack on the Jewish community for rejecting Jesus—another piece of evidence the Gospels weren't written early but late in the first century.

I put this here because it is related to your consistent rejection of God working through men, making it all their work. Certainly this was not the understanding of Luke. (Acts 1:1-3)

Luke doesn't give credit to God but to himself (Luke 1:1-3). In Acts he is talking about recounting what Jesus did and taught. That's not "inspiration." It's recollection.

5,463 posted on 12/16/2010 5:52:11 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5427 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson