Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The new testament is pretty much like the Talmud(jewish)..
Some teachers opinions of what “things” are and or should be..
The Talmud is some Rabbi’s opinions on other Rabbi’s opinions..
The New Testament is pretty much the same thing..
Except the Rabbis are called Apostles, same thing really..
And the Rabbi’s and Apostles may have actually had experiences with “God” in some fashion.. or NOT..
But both ask interesting questions and attempt to answer some of them as well..
Both are worth reading but the damned Talmud is way too big..
The modern Protestant’s stance on the New Testament canon vis-a-vis their stance on the “Apocrypha” is slightly hypocritical.
Thank you for posting this. I’m saving it for closer reading a little later, and for future reference.
The original part of the Didache was written by Paul and Barnabus.
Can you summarize the article in a flow chart???.... Just kidding... that is a lot of excellent information! Thank you for sharing.
Very long but very good listing of New Testament history. Thank you. Marking for later study.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The people who question the canon of the New Testament are generally those who do not like what the New Testament has to say and want to add more books in order to 1) water down the parts they don’t like or 2) add parts they can interpret and twist to their own way of thinking.
The reality is that the books considered for inclusion in the canon but ultimately left out (namely I and II Clement, Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius’s Epistles) are solid and worthy reads but do not say anything that the other books don’t already say. In other words, they’re redundant.
The so-called “Sayings Gospel of Thomas” (a favorite of revisionists), the Gospel of Mary, and others were never considered authoritative by the early church. The Thomas Gospel, for example, is a collection of quotes without any background or context. revisionsist love it because they are able to imagine a context of their liking and then cite the Gospel as authoritative.
Another good essay. Thank you for sharing.
BKMK for later.
The article is written from the perspective of one who is an enemy of Christ.
Nothing in the article glorifies Christ, the work of God the Holy Spirit, nor the Plan of the Father, but attempts to counterfeit the authority of God with their personal worldly judgment.
The Word of God just didn’t happen to evolve when a body of bishops voted upon it.
Here's a link to another chronology for the appearance and authorship of the NT canon with some examples that oredate the one you have given:
A. D. 37 - 45 General (catholic) Epistle by James, Our Lord's brother (a son of Mary)
A. D. 45 The Gospel (in Semitic) written by Levi (Matthew)
A. D. 49 Mid-summer, The Epistle to Galatians, by Paul from Antioch (Acts 14:27,28)
A. D. 50 The Gospel According to Matthew (in Greek) written by Levi (Matthew)
A. D. 51 Early spring, The First Epistle to Thessalonians by Paul The Apostle, from Corinth
This well-researched chronology may help you:
http://www.happyheralds.com/Chron-list-of-NewTestament-Books.pdf
With sincere respect.
A good article. Well written and, despite how long it might look, fairly concise. I wish lecturers had been so concise.
I’m not exactly sure about some of the anger in the comments as the article doesn’t actually seem to address the issues they are disagreeing about.
I’m also baffled as to why this is tagged homosexual agenda.