Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 09-11-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

We have still not determined WHO authorized individual heresiologists ascribed to the 2nd century to advocate on behalf of official texts for their religion

Of course we have. How many times does it need to be said that the Roman Empire cultivated its own 'poodles' (such as Polycarp and Clement) from an early stage? Who were the grievous wolves of whom Paul spoke? Who were the teachers of whom Peter wrote who invented stories? The very same people complained of by Tacitus when he mentioned 'spies everywhere'. If one does not understand the nature and workings of the Roman Empire, in Britain, in Spain, in Rome, in Corinth, anywhere, one will never understand the history of its period, and the existence of these favoured heresiarchs.

What few people seem to consider is how a religion that forced an empire to destroy thousands of temples in the face of riots, to adopt its name, to enforce its following throughout, did so when there was at any one time but a tiny handful of spokesmen to apparently represent it. That they obviously survived only because they without fail misrepresented it is a colossal clue.

Yes, but NOT IN THE SECOND CENTURY OBVIOUSLY.

Yes, if one believes that Paul, Peter, Jude and John wrote in the 3rd century.

Duvduv · 09-15-2012, 06:25 PM

Then the question arises as to why GMatt would have an interpolation that is clearly from a much later date in chapter 16 about Peter being the rock on which Jesus establishes his church at a time when there was a regime church, yet the NT canon had ostensibly been confirmed long before this. A canon is not to be tampered with. Yet the interpolation is from a time long after the alleged earlier heresiologists claimed such a canon.

James The Least · 09-20-2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, the emerging church used them in their biblical canon as a single set. There is no evidence of any group exclusively preferring one of the canonical canonical gospels over any other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not facts, inferences.

"Scholars" infer the existence of communities from the gospels, because the gospels appear to be liturgical documents that must have been preserved because someone used them.

not until 325 AD

and yes there is evidence that they were canonized in different forms at different dates.

the original composition doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure they came from different geographic locations

Nobody discussed NT canon at Nicea in 325. Proving once again that you have no idea what you're talking about bud. What was discussed was Canon LAW.

James The Least · 09-20-2012, 08:27 PM

If you're interested in this question at all you should read Trobisch's book. He makes a pretty good argument for a mid-to-late second century "canonization" process by a strangely-anonymous editor. By the close of the 100s you have church writers referring to books called "The OT" and "The NT." The abbreviations of the nomina sacra are the same in all early texts, suggesting they copied the style of a single editor. And so on.

But yeah, it's bizarre that there isn't even a fake church legend about this, like "the holy spirit descended upon Polycarp and Justin and in a miraculous revelation during Pentecost they determined the correct and authentic 27 books out of the hundreds that were written. They completed the books right before the evil Jews had them crucified, just like the scriptures foretold."

outhouse · 09-20-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

not until 325 AD

and yes there is evidence that they were canonized in different forms at different dates.

the original composition doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure they came from different geographic locations

Nobody discussed NT canon at Nicea in 325. Proving once again that you have no idea what you're talking about bud. What was discussed was Canon LAW.

dont claim what I know or dont from a stance of ignorance

because you dont know that.

theres a good chance Constantine had 50 bibles in 331 put together at that time for his 50 new churches. which would have been works very simular to what is present today

and I also stated clearly that the canon evolved, really things were not solidified until 393

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_B...of_Constantine

Jerome, in his Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".[2]

so try again your wrong my original point was there were collections being preserved at roughly that time. im only guilty of not putting "ish" on the end

Duvduv · 09-21-2012, 12:17 AM

How could any writer said to live in the second century claim the establishment of a specific set of texts without any indication of who was empowered to authorize the set of texts to the exclusion of any other for all believers? This could only be done under a particular authority such as a regime of the Constantinians or a Vatican or specific council of authority.

Toto · 09-21-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How could any writer said to live in the second century claim the establishment of a specific set of texts without any indication of who was empowered to authorize the set of texts to the exclusion of any other for all believers? This could only be done under a particular authority such as a regime of the Constantinians or a Vatican or specific council of authority.

Repeating this point does not make it valid. People can have authority because of their charisma, or because they are the tallest or the loudest, or because they convince other people that leadership is required.

Look at any small religion or cult in the present day. There's probably a leader who makes authoritative pronouncements.

sotto voce · 09-21-2012, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How could any writer said to live in the second century claim the establishment of a specific set of texts without any indication of who was empowered to authorize the set of texts to the exclusion of any other for all believers? This could only be done under a particular authority such as a regime of the Constantinians or a Vatican or specific council of authority.

Repeating this point does not make it valid. People can have authority because of their charisma, or because they are the tallest or the loudest, or because they convince other people that leadership is required.

Look at any small religion or cult in the present day. There's probably a leader who makes authoritative pronouncements.

And of course it won't be Christian.

Huon · 09-21-2012, 02:50 AM

Duvduv, you could be interested by two books of Alfred Loisy :
Loisy
The birth of the Christian religion
The Origins of the New Testament

sotto voce · 09-21-2012, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Duvduv, you could be interested by two books of Alfred Loisy

Or perhaps not. Joe Sarto found him a right turn-off.

Quote:

The birth of the Christian religion

Ah, when it comes.

Un autre Catholique:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried. GK Chesterton

Loisy lui-même:

Jesus came preaching the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church.

So much for 'the Vicar of Christ'.

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

09-15-2012, 06:25 PM	#82
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Then the question arises as to why GMatt would have an interpolation that is clearly from a much later date in chapter 16 about Peter being the rock on which Jesus establishes his church at a time when there was a regime church, yet the NT canon had ostensibly been confirmed long before this. A canon is not to be tampered with. Yet the interpolation is from a time long after the alleged earlier heresiologists claimed such a canon.

09-20-2012, 08:27 PM	#84
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	If you're interested in this question at all you should read Trobisch's book. He makes a pretty good argument for a mid-to-late second century "canonization" process by a strangely-anonymous editor. By the close of the 100s you have church writers referring to books called "The OT" and "The NT." The abbreviations of the nomina sacra are the same in all early texts, suggesting they copied the style of a single editor. And so on. But yeah, it's bizarre that there isn't even a fake church legend about this, like "the holy spirit descended upon Polycarp and Justin and in a miraculous revelation during Pentecost they determined the correct and authentic 27 books out of the hundreds that were written. They completed the books right before the evil Jews had them crucified, just like the scriptures foretold."

09-21-2012, 12:17 AM	#86
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	How could any writer said to live in the second century claim the establishment of a specific set of texts without any indication of who was empowered to authorize the set of texts to the exclusion of any other for all believers? This could only be done under a particular authority such as a regime of the Constantinians or a Vatican or specific council of authority.

09-21-2012, 02:50 AM	#89
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Duvduv, you could be interested by two books of Alfred Loisy : Loisy The birth of the Christian religion The Origins of the New Testament

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.