mountainman

The New Testament was first bound to the old in the "Constantine Bible"
which dates to around 330 CE. We are left to assume that Eusebius
decided the canon for this publication, the very first publication.

Gamera

Yes, Paul's epistles are commentaries on the gospels. Or more to the point, they are in the traditions of "arts" of practice, which were common in antiquity. There were written arts for archery, for writing poetry, for making good speeches, for being a good lover. Paul has written an "art" for Christian living.

I think it's a mistake to look at Paul's letters as theological writings. Indeed, I don't think theology had been invented yet, and would await the church fathers to come into existence. That's why Paul is wonderfully silent on all the later nonsensical controversies, like the Trinity and original sin.

Larsguy47

I think there was a de facto closing of the canon by cross-quoting from what was considered the inspired books. All the books of the OT are apparently cross-quoted from in the NT except three books in the popular current canon: Song of Solomon, Esther and Ecclesiastes, all three books quite dismissible as non-inspired, especially SOS and Esther, obviously.

So that's my personal take on the "internal canon"; I dismiss the above three books as noncanonical as far as the CBW (Christian Bible Writers) canon goes.

Larsguy47

Duck

So you think that the gospels were written before Paul's epistles? Or are you referring to other gospels besides those known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?Did he base this "art" on any writings or was it based soley on personal revelation?So, when was theology "invented"?

maddog

the "early Christians"? the Christians who began to close the canon did so three hundred years after the events supposedly depicted. that's longer than the United States of America has been an independent nation.

#1784

mountainman

Do we know the canon of "the Constantine Bible"?
We do know its editor and sponsor and date of publication.
And we know that it was published with great lavish.

Perhaps our most ancient Codexes are copies of
the Constantine bible. They look to be "copies of
something", because of the nature of their errors
in a comparitive sense.

mountainman

That maddog is called an chronological inference.

Your inference (as is the inference of all mainstream theories
of the historical and/or mythical Jesus, with few exceptions)
is that the Eusebian chronology is true and correct, such
that the canons were decided 300 years after the Eusebian
related events.

I do not make that inference, rather that I suspect that the
"Ecclesiastical Historiography" delivered by Eusebius, under
the malevolent dictatorial regime of Constantine, contained
within it a pseudo-history.

In today's world of the internet, it is remarkable that there
exists no online evidence to support the conjecture that
there were in fact "christians" on the planet earth before
they and their Roman religious order were invented in the
fourth century by Constantine.

Chili

The so called Christians are the evidence that the antichrist had apostolic succession right back to the day when Jesus first broke bread. They were formally introduced in John 1:13, were foreshadowed in Jn. 5:39-40 and finally identified in Jn.6:66 with: "From this time on many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer." The words "his company" became known as our "apostolic tradition."

So really, the entire field of theology is like yeast added to the bread of life that first killed the children of Israel and now is killing the so called Christians again. To this point Catholics would argue that theology is counter productive and should never be a part of religion beyond fair indoctrination. This would be why the closed canon was written by those in the know for those in the know.

S.C.Carlson

Maybe the capital-G "Gospel," but not the four gospels themselves; they were written later than Paul's letters.

Stephen

John Kesler

In addition to the books you listed, can you show me where the following OT books are quoted in the NT?

Judges, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Zephaniah

And if you can't show where my list is quoted in the NT, do the above books become "quite dismissible as non-inspired" or will there be an ad hoc reason for exempting them from this designation?