You believe in the Jewish faith. After all, that religious doctrine is based on the Old Testament. And then you go further with the New Testament as decreed by the Pope as the Holy Bible.
You believe in the Jewish faith. After all, that religious doctrine is based on the Old Testament. And then you go further with the New Testament as decreed by the Pope as the Holy Bible.
Sure he does. The Catholic Church created the New Testament; it is called the Vulgate. All the other Christian religions simply use the work as they see fit for their own purposes.
All 27 NT books were complete before the end of the apostolic age.
What about the other 160 "agreed upon" omitted books by the Catholic church?
No church can claim "they" wrote or "approved" what the Holy Spirit inspired and the apostles wrote down.
Sure they can. All material books are manmade by some inconsequential human being located somewhere on this planet Earth inscribing an interpretation. That is why there are so many Christian churches.
Sure they can. All material books are manmade by some inconsequential human being located somewhere on this planet Earth inscribing an interpretation. That is why there are so many Christian churches.
An assertion on your part. The 'so many' Christian churches can be whittled down to what they point to as their infallible authority. Some point to men for such and many more point to Holy Scriptures because of their Divine attributes.
Please show me the "other 160 'agreed upon' omitted books." When you do I will point to you why they are not Holy Scriptures.
Please show me the "other 160 'agreed upon' omitted books." When you do I will point to you why they are not Holy Scriptures.
Let us start with ten for you to explain awy:
"Q" Third Letter to the Corinthians The Didache Gospel of Thomas 1st Clement Shepherd of Hermas Infancy Gospel of James The Epistle of Barnabas Apocalypse of Peter Lost Epistle to the Corinthians
I guess the above documents missed the review committee for adoption into the "New Testament." I shall now patiently await your "scholarly" post.
#34. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, liberator, TooConservative (#32)
Let us start with ten for you to explain awy:
"Q": a 19th century liberal theological theory. Since the synoptic gospels have many of the same information and surprisingly match (in the liberal theologian mind this can't be!) they must have been from one source! Q theory discredited in the 20th century. No real theologian speaks of it except atheists today. There are no "Q" manuscripts.
Third Letter to the Corinthians: not known in the sub apostolic era. Authorship is not Paul.
The Didache: not a work of an apostle nor scribe of an apostle. Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter; Luke under Paul.
Gospel of Thomas: dated to the late 2nd century. Thomas was long dead after that. No apostle no scripture. Attributed to 2nd century Gnostics.
1st Clement: not an apostle. Good for Christians to read and heed but Clement was not an apostle.
Shepherd of Hermas: second century document. All apostles were already home with the Lord.
Infancy Gospel of James: Another document dated in the 2nd second century. See above about the apostles no longer alive in the second century.
The Epistle of Barnabas: Another good read. Earliest dating is to rule of Nerva at the end of the 1st century. The Barnabas who was a companion of Paul was long dead by then. Another work not authored by an apostle or scribe for living apostle.
Apocalypse of Peter: attributed to the late 2nd century. See above about the apostles and all no longer alive after the 1st century.
Lost Epistle to the Corinthians: I assume you mean the 3rd letter to the Corinthians. Dated to mid 2nd century. I think you know from the above the general timeframe of the 2nd century in relation to the 1st century. Paul was martyred in the mid 1st century. So again another work which is not of apostolic origin.
For all of the above I didn't even get into some of them are of dubious origins, and not resembling a work of the supposed author attribution is given.
"Q": a 19th century liberal theological theory. Since the synoptic gospels have many of the same information and surprisingly match (in the liberal theologian mind this can't be!) they must have been from one source! Q theory discredited in the 20th century. No real theologian speaks of it except atheists today. There are no "Q" manuscripts.
I see that you believe in "real theologians" as the source for your rebuttal and clearly reflects on your capability to discuss the Q hypothesis with any level of analysis.
Third Letter to the Corinthians: not known in the sub apostolic era. Authorship is not Paul.
How do you know?
The Didache: not a work of an apostle nor scribe of an apostle. Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter; Luke under Paul.
Are you saying the Bible (the New Testament) is limited to a document published by an apostle? Why is your opinion a valid perspective?
Gospel of Thomas: dated to the late 2nd century. Thomas was long dead after that. No apostle no scripture. Attributed to 2nd century Gnostics.
I get it; lets dispel all data from the Nag Hammadi library. For your position, it is very clever to hide from additional data that reveals another facet about the life and times of Jesus.
1st Clement: not an apostle. Good for Christians to read and heed but Clement was not an apostle.
Wait a minute! If the book is not included in the Holy Bible from the framework of your own arguments, how is this text "good for Christians"; don't you think you are committing some sort of sin by suggesting such blasphemous behaviour?
Shepherd of Hermas: second century document. All apostles were already home with the Lord.
The Shepard was referenced by many early church leeaders such as Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. But, the Acts just didn't quite make it into the back room for advancing into the New Testament?
Infancy Gospel of James: Another document dated in the 2nd second century. See above about the apostles no longer alive in the second century.
What makes any later writings about Jesus any less value than those accepted into the Bible? The ground rules are arbitrary and inconsistent that writings are accepted only by a self-elected committee that accept "certain" writings and not others considered "canonical." All you suggest is that you accept or grovel towards some self-selected or imposed long gone, committee cramming down your throat what is revered or not. Were you one of the members of and about the Synod of Carthage to tell us the criteria of acceptance of the 27 books as inspired?
The Epistle of Barnabas: Another good read. Earliest dating is to rule of Nerva at the end of the 1st century. The Barnabas who was a companion of Paul was long dead by then. Another work not authored by an apostle or scribe for living apostle.
So what? You denounce "good reads" because some committee decided to remove the document as not being "canonical?" You are saying that you agree with some silly origin of the Catholic religion is all. Jesus did not initiate a church or some sort of religion.
Apocalypse of Peter: attributed to the late 2nd century. See above about the apostles and all no longer alive after the 1st century.
"attributed" is very suggestive to any readers by yourself masking the discussion.
Lost Epistle to the Corinthians: I assume you mean the 3rd letter to the Corinthians. Dated to mid 2nd century. I think you know from the above the general timeframe of the 2nd century in relation to the 1st century. Paul was martyred in the mid 1st century. So again another work which is not of apostolic origin.
Yuppers. It actually predates 1st Corinthians: 5:9 “I wrote to you in my (previous) letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.”
For all of the above I didn't even get into some of them are of dubious origins, and not resembling a work of the supposed author attribution is given.
You showed your true colours, though. Congratulations.
