Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 06-07-2007, 06:41 PM

[QUOTE=mountainman;4519176]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

There can't have been anything official, can there. There were plenty of copies made, if that's what you mean. It's just that nobody was supposed to own up to owning one.

Quote:

Hey, we are told that there were "official churches" which were
serviced by "official popes", "official bishops", "official presbyters"
and "other church officials" for a long and continuous apostlic
succession all over the place in MiddleEarth. They were in fact,
we are lead to believe, associated with a large number of published
authors. (See the list above).

Never believe a Catholic.

WishboneDawn · 06-08-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Regarding the New Testament, I believe that the correct answer is because New Testament writers did not have a clue that their writings would be chosen hundreds of years later to become the New Testament Canon

On the contrary, they knew very well exactly what they were writing, as can be seen from reading them (unless some smart guy is going to say that later insertion accounts for this). Peter described Paul's writing as Scripture, and Paul instructed that his letters be read to the churches, which was permitted only for Scripture.

The point was that they didn't know their writings would be chosen for the New Testament, not that they didn't think their writings were 'scripture' or gospel.

Clouseau · 06-08-2007, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

On the contrary, they knew very well exactly what they were writing, as can be seen from reading them (unless some smart guy is going to say that later insertion accounts for this). Peter described Paul's writing as Scripture, and Paul instructed that his letters be read to the churches, which was permitted only for Scripture.

The point was that they didn't know their writings would be chosen for the New Testament, not that they didn't think their writings were 'scripture' or gospel.

If they thought their writings were Scripture, they knew that they had already written the New Testament. The NT was formed as soon as it was read by its first recipients. Forget all that Catholic garbage about them deciding.

WishboneDawn · 06-08-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

If they thought their writings were Scripture, they knew that they had already written the New Testament. The NT was formed as soon as it was read by its first recipients. Forget all that Catholic garbage about them deciding.

The OP is specifically addressing the 'Catholic garbage'. That's what the question here is about.

Clouseau · 06-08-2007, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

If they thought their writings were Scripture, they knew that they had already written the New Testament. The NT was formed as soon as it was read by its first recipients. Forget all that Catholic garbage about them deciding.

The OP is specifically addressing the 'Catholic garbage'.

I'm glad we agree it's garbage, anyway.

WishboneDawn · 06-08-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I'm glad we agree it's garbage, anyway.

We don't.

No need for cheap tricks.

Clouseau · 06-08-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

No need for cheap tricks.

You got it, Dawn.

gstafleu · 06-08-2007, 10:49 AM

The late publication of the good news, while compatible with MM theory, is not necessarily indicative of it. It could be, as has been frequently argued, that Christianity in the first few centuries CE was a rather widely divergent collection of beliefs. In that case every sect would have stuck to their own tradition without seeing a need to collate some sort of all-encompassing bible. That need only arose once our friend C saw it necessary to unite all these sects into one. Hence it was only at that time that the rather widely divergent mess which is currently called the NT was presented as an harmonious whole--or else.

Gerard Stafleu

Clouseau · 06-08-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The late publication of the good news, while compatible with MM theory, is not necessarily indicative of it. It could be, as has been frequently argued, that Christianity in the first few centuries CE was a rather widely divergent collection of beliefs.

The argument seems to be one of convenient labelling- "There were many vaguely similar beliefs that arose, so we'll call them all 'Christianity'" - without any check to see if all of them bar one were not attempts to pervert the remaining one.

Quote:

Hence it was only at that time that the rather widely divergent mess which is currently called the NT was presented as an harmonious whole--or else.

The factor that makes the Bible the world's best-seller is that it is an organic whole like nothing else in the cosmos. That is why all of those early sects bar one were attempts to corrupt it.

WishboneDawn · 06-08-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The late publication of the good news, while compatible with MM theory, is not necessarily indicative of it. It could be, as has been frequently argued, that Christianity in the first few centuries CE was a rather widely divergent collection of beliefs. In that case every sect would have stuck to their own tradition without seeing a need to collate some sort of all-encompassing bible. That need only arose once our friend C saw it necessary to unite all these sects into one. Hence it was only at that time that the rather widely divergent mess which is currently called the NT was presented as an harmonious whole--or else.

Gerard Stafleu

That seems the most straightforward and obvious answer to me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2007, 10:49 AM	#18
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	The late publication of the good news, while compatible with MM theory, is not necessarily indicative of it. It could be, as has been frequently argued, that Christianity in the first few centuries CE was a rather widely divergent collection of beliefs. In that case every sect would have stuck to their own tradition without seeing a need to collate some sort of all-encompassing bible. That need only arose once our friend C saw it necessary to unite all these sects into one. Hence it was only at that time that the rather widely divergent mess which is currently called the NT was presented as an harmonious whole--or else. Gerard Stafleu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.