|
Post by cervyy on Aug 19, 2006 22:45:19 GMT -5
I was watching a History channel prgram on the banned books of the Bible. And it hit me, the New Testament was contructed much after Jesus. Who told them to put it together?
Is there any biblical evidence of the churches being told by God to construct an addition to the other book He had written?
And where is the biblical evidence or support for the way the books of the New Testament were chosen?
Humans did it, human err. I mean look, they must have been high to put Revelation in the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 20, 2006 10:29:12 GMT -5
I'll wait a full day for any repsonses to this, but without any I will be forced to make the biggest decision concerning my religious beliefs.
"Christians," this means don't fail the word of your God. Give me the answers I seek.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 20, 2006 20:37:59 GMT -5
You respond to my thread on "Questions for Relativists" and I'll respond to your question about the New Testament canon.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 21, 2006 12:43:41 GMT -5
Cervyy,
The first sentence was all I needed as an answer. No need for the additional comments . A simple: "I'm not a relativist, therefore this doesn't apply to me" would have been sufficient.
So, back to your question about the NT....
First, let's define our terms so that we know what the other is talking about and thereby avoid any confusion and talking/writing past each other.
First question, you stated: "the NT was constructed much after Jesus..." Please further define what you mean by "constructed." Do you mean written, compiled or something else?
Second question: by "other book He had written" are you referring to the Old Testament?
I think I understand your third statement but I'll await further clarification on your other statements before answering in order to just do it all at once.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 21, 2006 12:56:04 GMT -5
For the most part, yes I mean compiled. But I further wonder why, if I am correct, why the books in the NT were written so long after Jesus (the Gospels and those which were written by the followers who were with him).
And yes, I was refering to the Old Testament.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 21, 2006 15:53:35 GMT -5
The first question to ask yourself is whether anything in the New Testament, as written, contradicts the Old Testament. If it does, we would have a huge problem, but it doesn't. As far as the preaching of the gospel, even the book of Acts in Chapter 28:23-24 describes that Paul, who wrote the majority of the books in the NT only persuaded perople to Jesus by the Law and the Prophets (OT). Christians do not need the NT to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified for the sins of the world, it was already written quite well in the OT.
The Gospels were the accounts of the ministry time of Jesus by four separate men. The time of these writings, since written by the eyewitness, could not have been too long afterwards, especially since most Christians were persecuted and put to death. Only John lived to be an old man. It these writings of the gospel, they reveal the fulfilment of OT prophesy. Acts is an account by Luke of what hapenned after Jesus came back from the dead and then ascended to heaven. You can tell which parts Luke was eyewitness to and which he wasn't based on the writing. The early parts of Act he says "they", then when we know he was with them, he says "we", then it shifts back to "they". In addition to being a physician, Luke was a scholar and historian. In all his writings we find no contradiction with other writers in the OT or NT. The Epistles, nearly every book left in the NT, with the exception of Revelations, are letters of teaching, encouragement, exhortation, and warnings. They too appear to be divinely inspired because they too do not contradict each other in the NT nor the OT. Amazing! The NT Bible ends in a Revelation of Jesus, that John was blessed to be shown for himself and for us, as he shares what he saw. It was not a dream, but a revelation.
I have read many other Epistles that are not in the Bible and other gospel accounts, because like you I was curious about why this book, and why not that one. I found many not only were written by non-eyewitnesses, or didn't seem to be inspired as one reads them. What I mean by that is many seemed to be in opposition to not just one, but several other books from the NT and OT. That was the litmus test for cannonization. There is an old book that was printed in 1928 called "Lost Books of the Bible". The author published these books so people could read them, and judge for theirselves how well the forefathers did in the cannon process. I for one found that upon reading these many books and letters, that God inspired cannon of the books He wanted in it. You would have to read them all yourself and decide if they did as well; or accept many who have and just accept God had His hand in on the process.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Aug 21, 2006 16:21:24 GMT -5
40 men wrote the Bible, both OT and NT, over a period of 1600 years on 3 seperate continents.
The theme, however, of all men, who lived at varied periods of time and spoke different lanuages and had differing occupations, comes together perfectly.
The Scriptures were definately inspired.....
Also, if one reads Polycarp (a disciple of John who was a disciple of Jesus) and 1 and 2 Clement... those also have the feel of NT Apostolic Authority; yet even these authors claim no inspiration as do the BIBLICAL authors.
The Bible is such a wonderful book!
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 21, 2006 18:59:25 GMT -5
Wonderful post jack, pretty full of a lot of info ...
sadly, that does not answer any of my questions.
SO, STILL waiting for answers.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 22, 2006 18:33:13 GMT -5
In the OT the authors said in many places that God asked then to write things down. When they wrote them down, I don't think they believed they were writing what we see today as "The Bible", any more than those who wrote the NT thought "lets write a NT". We do know that the OT was put together as a book of inspired writings. The history also describes that happening again to create the NT.
I don't think you say God said "write the OT" or that God said "Don't write the NT".
I also believe today that many things written since the completion of the NT that I have read are "inspired" and that they are good for teaching, exhortation and reproof, just like the Bible does. In that same manner, I believe men lead by the Spirit who preach can be seen as having an annoiting of God for their sermons (granted not all the time).
The judge of that aanointing or inspiration can only be a comparison to the Word Written, as was very well said by my Brother Biblethumper.
Its like sifting sand at the beach. Pieces of shells or such, get filtered out. When we read a document or hear a teaching, our knowledge of the true word helps find counterfeit quickly.
The Christians after Jesus' resurection and ascention apparently began circulating good letter which they thought would edify others. The more these passed around, some where started to be kept as a group, and eventually they were bound together as "good teachings that appeared inspired" based on OT writings and the very teachings of Jesus they had heard from Him.
So I don't know that anyone said "Thou shall write the NT" only that it came about, which I believe was God's plan to we could all have a copy today.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 22, 2006 22:04:05 GMT -5
Cervyy,
Thanks for clarifying for me. I had a long day today and just came back from dinner with some friends and I'm hot and tired. I'll answer you tomorrow. Just wanted to let you know I'm on it.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 23, 2006 6:55:14 GMT -5
I look foreward to it luvofchrist and thank you for posting that.
|
|
|
Post by ebrayley on Aug 23, 2006 9:25:36 GMT -5
The canon is not an authoritative list of books, it is a list of authoritative books.
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 23, 2006 10:40:19 GMT -5
I saw the special as well--I've caught it a couple times but never the full amount, so i was happy to get the whole thing in detail. I love learning about the banned books of the bible.
In the end, some books were left out because they were not needed, or because they challenged the social-minds of the time. You have to remember a bunch of white men decided what went in and what went out. They say Mary Magdelene wrote a book but the men couldn't tolerate the idea of a woman being an authority, even if she was a follower of Jesus and he cared for her.
I really need to get my hands on some of the Gnostic books.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 23, 2006 12:43:00 GMT -5
Shangxin:
Why so much hatred towards "white men"? Could you define "white"? Many involved in the Cannon were from many nations we might not call "white". If your issue is with the fact they were men, then you must take issue that Jesus called "12 men" to be Apostles, and have issue with Paul that in 1 Tim 3 Paul writes clearly that Bishops and Deacons should be blameless and the husbands of one wife.
I don't hate women because Mary was blessed more than any man, to have been able to give birth to Jesus and raise Him. I don't have a problem that the women saw Jesus first after He rose.
I wish sometimes I could know what joy it must be to have a child growing inside me and then raise that young one with tenderness that seems to be a blessing from God.
How could life even continue with male and female?
Are you thankful to be a women? Or do you covet being a male? The later places you at enmity with God, not men. Maybe you should take your frustrations to God, and then be willing to submit to Him first.
Note that one of the signs if the curse on women because of the disobedience od Adam and Eve, was that women would want to rule over men, but that men would rule over them. A women walking in the Spirit of God can overcome their cursed disposition to desire to rule over men, and instead obediently accept their caling to be a helper of men, to God's glory.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 23, 2006 14:24:06 GMT -5
For the most part, yes I mean compiled. But I further wonder why, if I am correct, why the books in the NT were written so long after Jesus (the Gospels and those which were written by the followers who were with him). And yes, I was refering to the Old Testament. Okay, grab a latte, chai or your favorite beverage. You wrote an in depth question so it will take some time to write the full answer. Actually, the NT books were not written that long after Jesus. Most, were written within 40 years of his death, resurrection and ascension. Comparably, when you have books being written about WW2 even now, you still have eyewitness accounts to corroborate actions, so 40 years really isn't "much later." For instance:my dad and my husband's uncle were both soldiers in WW2 and are still alive and vividly remember details. My dad was deployed in Europe in the Army and my husband's uncle was a Marine on Iwo Jima in the Pacific. There are still enough WW2 vets alive even 61 years after the end of WW2 to corroborte stories or refute lies. Keep this in mind in regards to the gospels and other NT writers. However, many NT books were written even sooner than 40 years afterwards. Manuscript scholars have dated The Gospel of Mark to the early AD 50s. This would put the writing of this gospel at about 15-18 years after the resurrection of Christ. Many consider Mark to have been the "John Mark" mentioned in the book of Acts and to have been writing his gospel based on the eyewitness account of Peter. History tells us that Peter was martyred by the Emperor Nero. Nero died in AD 68, therefore we know that Mark had to have interviewed Peter and gotten his account prior to AD 68 as that would be the last possible year Nero could have had Peter killed. Hence, we know Mark wrote his account prior to this date. So, the very latest time would be AD 68, (although probably earlier) to 34-36 years later. We're still well within the time period of eyewitness to corroborate and/or refute the testimony in the gospel of Mark. We know the Gospel of Luke was written prior to Luke writing "The Acts of the Apostles" (just referred to as Acts here on out). See Luke 1:1 and Acts 1:1. Luke also claims in his gospel to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" and that he will give an "orderly account." Side note: Luke is the only Gentile writer of the Scriptures. Luke was also a Greek, and a highly educated doctor. We see from his accounts that he definitely has a phyiscian's "attention to detail." therefore when he writes he focuses more on a chronological presentation whereas the Jewish writers focus more on an "importance" presentation. So this is what is probably meant when he writes that he will give an "orderly account." Okay, so back to the dating: 1) We know Luke was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. Luke himself tells us and so does Paul (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-8, 27:1-28 and 16, Philemon 23-24 and Colossians 4:10-17) 2) Luke includeds so many historical details in his accounts that we can date the events sometimes within days based on corroborating historical and archaeological evidence. For example we see in the Gospel of Luke 2:1-3 that Caesar Augustus issued the decree for the census, he did this while Quirinius was Governor of Syria. We also know that Herod the Great was king and that Herod died in BC 4 and Quirinius was governor of Syria 2 times: 6-4 BC and then again in 6-9 AD. Therefore, we can figure that Jesus was born no later than 4 BC. 3) The book of Acts covers a time period of about 28-30 years. It starts with Jesus' ascension in the first few verses and ends with Paul first imprisonment in Rome under emperor Nero, which again we know had to occur prior to Nero's death in AD 68. If we say that Jesus was crucified in AD 32 and that Nero died in AD 68, we have only a window of 36 years. Now, we believe that Acts was written before AD 68 because Luke ends Acts without telling us what happened to Paul. We do know at this time that he was under house arrest and allowed a great deal of freedom to have his friends come and tend to his needs and take letters that he had written. We know later from historians and other writings that Paul would be arrested again by Nero and then beheaded according to Nero's command. When the book of Acts closes we still have Paul in prison waiting his first trial. Therefore, Acts was written around 63/64 AD. Within 30 years. Luke records Herod Agrippa's death in chapter 12:19-25. It describes Herod wearing his royal robes giving a public address. After the address, the people hailed Herod as a god and Herod died. The scriptures say that because Herod was accepting praise as a god and didn't rebuke the people that God struck Herod down. We know this occurred in AD 44 because the historian Josephus tells us in his "Antiquities 19.8.2. Josephus even describes Herod's royal robes as being made from silver threads and dazzling bright in the sunlight. More dating in chapter 18 tells us that this event occurred in AD 51-52 because in verse 12 it mentions the proconsul of Corinth being Gallio. Archeology and history tells us that this Gallio was a brother to the great philosopher/teacher, Seneca who was the personal tutor of Nero. From an inscription found in Delphi, we know Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (the province wherein Corinth was located) in AD 51-52 Again in chapter 24 of Acts we see Luke recording Paul's trial before governor Felix in Israel at Ceasarea. Archaeology tells us that this Felix is Antonius Felix whom the Emperor Claudius appointed governor of Judea in AD 52. The historian Tacitus tell us this. Later in chapter 24, after Paul had been detained in jail by Felix for two years, Felix was replaced by Festus. There is no historical record of Festus prior to his arrival in Israel as governor. He only lived two more years and died in office. Felix was replaced by Festus in 59/60 AD. Tacitus tells us that Felix was recalled to Rome to face accusations of improprieties and irregularities in his rule. Now, Paul gives his defense to Festus and King Herod Agrippa II during this first year of Festus's rule. So we know Paul stands before them in 59/60 AD. It is during this defense before Festus that Paul, a Roman citizen, appeals to Caesar. As a Roman citizen, Paul had the right to be heard by Caesar himself. Once an appeal to Caesar was made it had to be honored. Therefore, Paul is shipped off to Rome on the next available boat under guard. So, now we stand at AD 59/60 and Paul is on his way to Rome to be heard by Caesar. Now, just like our Supreme Court the docket is full, he didn't get in to see Caesar right away, so Paul has to wait under house arrest for at least two years. Now, given the sailing time in those days with the shipwreck that occurred, etc. If all that had taken a year that still would only place our ending of Acts at about AD 63. Again, since Luke doesn't tell us how the trial comes out we can assume it hadn't happened yet. Can you see how scholars arrive at that time? It was during this arrest that Paul wrote many, not all, of his epistles. Cervyy, Yikes! I'm not done but I just looked at the clock and I'm late for an appointment. More later!! Digest this for now
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Aug 23, 2006 14:30:49 GMT -5
I saw the special as well--I've caught it a couple times but never the full amount, so i was happy to get the whole thing in detail. I love learning about the banned books of the bible. In the end, some books were left out because they were not needed, or because they challenged the social-minds of the time. You have to remember a bunch of white men decided what went in and what went out. They say Mary Magdelene wrote a book but the men couldn't tolerate the idea of a woman being an authority, even if she was a follower of Jesus and he cared for her. I really need to get my hands on some of the Gnostic books. Google "Gnostic Books," most if not all are online for free...
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 23, 2006 15:35:19 GMT -5
Shangxin: Why so much hatred towards "white men"? I don't hate white men. I do accept, though, that when the New Testament was put together the patriarchy were against the idea of female authority. Mary was safe since all she did was do a traditional womanly task, but other women... Could you define "white"? Many involved in the Cannon were from many nations we might not call "white". If your issue is with the fact they were men, then you must take issue that Jesus called "12 men" to be Apostles, and have issue with Paul that in 1 Tim 3 Paul writes clearly that Bishops and Deacons should be blameless and the husbands of one wife. I am not attacking men, but rather the time which again produced men that were sexist. Peter, for example, was said to be very displeased about Mary Magdelene having an active role in the religion. You don't have a problem with women in roles that are not authoritative? That's...not very impressive, no offense. Are you thankful to be a women? Or do you covet being a male? The later places you at enmity with God, not men. Maybe you should take your frustrations to God, and then be willing to submit to Him first. No. I like being female. I just wish females had more...equity. Note that one of the signs if the curse on women because of the disobedience od Adam and Eve, was that women would want to rule over men, but that men would rule over them. A women walking in the Spirit of God can overcome their cursed disposition to desire to rule over men, and instead obediently accept their caling to be a helper of men, to God's glory. I don't want to rule over men though. I don't want to rule over anyone. And I don't want anyone to rule over me. Just because a woman shows displeasure with sexism does not make her power-hungry, fyi.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 23, 2006 19:38:20 GMT -5
Okay, part 2...
I tell you this stuff about Luke and the book of Acts because it helps to establish our timeline. It also helps to establish the reliability, veracity and credibility of the Scriptures when it lines up so beautifully with history and archaeology.
Here are some comments by scholars on the manuscript evidence for the Scriptures:
F.F. Bruce: Eminent Professor at the University of Manchester, England. Author of the book: “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” has said: “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testatment.”
Sir Frederic Kenyon: Former director of the British Museum and author of the book: “The Palaeography of Greek Papyri”wrote: “in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.” His conclusion: “The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”
Ok, so with the closing of the book of Acts as being around 63/64 AD and no later than the year of the death of Nero being 68 AD we now have a time reference.
Regarding the New Testament Many of the Apostles writings were already considered Scripture by the time Paul wrote the second epistle to Timothy. Paul wrote 2 Timothy towards the end of his life, (circa 66-68 AD) possibly it was his last epistle which means all others were already written. Paul references Luke as Scripture in his first letter to Timothy (see below). Paul often referred to his own writings as from the Lord.
Peter described Paul's writings as being Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. 2 Peter was also written towards the end of Peter's life (65-68 AD) when he referred to Paul's writings as Scripture. So at this point you have all of Paul's writings and all of Peter's writings as Scripture.
Then you will see the Jude reference. Jude references Peter which means it was obviously written after Peter.
So here are the references:
2 Peter 3:15-16 15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. NIV (emphasis mine)
Jude 17 and 18 quotes 2 Peter 3:3
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." NIV
2 Peter 3:3 3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. NIV
And Paul quotes Luke 10:7 when writing to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:18 and puts Luke’s writing on par with OT scripture in the context of the verse.
1 Tim 5:18-19 18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." NIV
Luke 10:6-7 7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house. NIV
Also keep in mind that the time period between the writing of the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s reference of it in 1 Timothy was only about 3 years. So, you have Paul already considering Luke’s gospel as Scripture within 3 years of its writing.
Paul also viewed his own writings as Scripture and therefore authoritative (1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13)
All of this constitutes about 60% of the New Testament! So within the Apostles lifetime, you have at least 60% of the New Testament already being viewed as Scripture.
As the letters and gospels were circulated among the believers they were either accepted or rejected at that point, during the first century, as being authoritative and as being authentic scripture. So that begs the question: What were the criteria for authenticity and acceptance?
The Test of Scripture There was a five point test of authenticity. Each book had to have all 5 points to be true, not just a majority of points.
1. Was the book written by an apostle or the close associate of an apostle (such as John Mark and Luke)? The Word of God which is inspired by the Spirit of God must be written by a man of God. Deuteronomy 18:18 informs us that only a prophet of God will speak the word of God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 assures us that Scripture is only written by men of God. Hebrews 1:1 tells us that is how God reveals Himself.
2. Is the book authoritative? In other words, does it have the authority of “thus says the Lord’? Was the writer confirmed by God by a miracle of God (Acts 14:3)? Hebrews 2:3-4 says that we should expect some miraculous confirmation by those who claim to speak for God. In the book of Revelation we read repeatedly that Jesus commanded John to write: Chapter 1:10-11 and 19; Chapter 2:1,8,12 and 18; Chapter 3:1,7, and 14.
Moses had his rod and other miracles, the OT prophets did. Jesus had many miracles and rose from the dead. The apostles continued in the power of Christ to confirm their message was from God. (Does this help answer the question you had about God telling them to write or not?)
3. Does the book tell the truth about God as it has already been known by previous revelation? God said He does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8). We know that the Bereans searched the OT Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). They knew that if Paul’s teaching did not line up with the OT Scriptures, then Paul’s teaching was not of God. Agreement with all earlier revelation is essential. Paul knew this (Galatians 1:8-9).
If a book that claims to be inspired by God yet denies or contradicts basic truths already known about God, then it cannot truly be of God. It is a false book. God does not contradict himself.
4. Does the book give evidence of having the power of God?The reasoning here is that any writing that does not exhibit the transforming power of God in the lives of its readers could not have come from God. Scripture says that the Word of God is “living and active” (Hebrews 4:12). 2 Timothy 3:16 indicates that God’s Word has a transforming effect. If the book in question did not have the power to change a life, then, it was reasoned, the book couldn’t have come from God.
5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? In Old Testament times, Moses’ scrolls were placed immediately into the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). Joshua’s writings were added in the same fashion (Joshua 24:26). The same is true of Paul’s letters, they were accepted by those who received them as being from God (1 Thess. 2:13, Colossians 4:16, 1 Thess. 5:27). It is the norm that God’s people-that is, the majority of them and not simply a small faction-will initially receive God’s Word as such.
What about the Gnostic gospels or the books that were left out?
Regarding “books that were left out.” Personally, I find the descriptions of these books as "banned" or "lost" as funny. They were never "banned" nor "lost." They just weren't considered worthy of serious attention. Also, these statements have the wrong perspective on the issue. No other books were ever accepted and there is no reason to believe that most of them were ever in the running in the first place to be included. For both OT and NT books there are 3 categories:
1)Books that were accepted by everyone, 2) Some books that were later disputed, and 3) Some that were rejected by all. There is no category of books that were initially accepted and then thrown out.
The “Gnostic gospels” 1. They are written later than the other NT Scriptures. They were written in the 2nd to 6th centuries after Jesus! We've already established that how early the books included in Scripture were written.
2. They are called the “pseudoepigrapha” which literally means “false writings.” They are so called because the author uses the name of some apostle rather than his own name such as: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Acts of John or The Gospel of Mary etc. They were actually pretending to have apostolic authority to advance their own teachings. Today we would call this “fraud” or “forgery.”
3. These books teach the doctrines of the two earliest heresies, both of which deny the reality of Christ’s incarnation. They claim to provide stories about Jesus’ childhood but the stories they record are highly unlikely and not from eyewitnesses (such as the 4 gospels are).
No one ever accepted these as authoritative in any sense except the heretical factions that created them.
Some scholars (especially those of the ‘Jesus Seminar’) like to insist that the Gospel of Thomas should be included and claim it was excluded by some diabolical plot on the part of the Vatican. The popular book “The DaVinci Code” by Dan Brown promotes this theory. Let’s look more closely at this book (The Gospel of Thomas) based on the word of the world’s foremost Bible Scholar, Dr. Bruce Metzger, PhD
Let’s look briefly at Dr. Metzger’s credentials: Author or editor of more than 50 books relating to Biblical manuscripts and translation such as: The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content The Test of the New Testament The Canon of the New Testament Manuscripts of the Greek Bible Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Introduction to the Apocrypha The Oxford Companion to the Bible
He holds a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and both a master’s and a doctorate degree from Princeton University. In 1969 he served as resident scholar at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England. He was a visiting fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge University in 1974 and at Wolfson College, Oxford in 1979. He is past president of the International Society for New Testament Studies and the North American Patristic Society.
Fast facts on the Gospel of Thomas: Found among Nag Hammadi document in Egypt in 1945. Appears to have been written in Syria around 140 AD (much later than the gospels, Acts and Paul's letters) Contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus but with no narrative of what Jesus did. There are some sayings in this book that are totally alien to the other gospels. For instance it states Jesus said: “Split wood: I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there.” That’s pantheism, that Jesus is one with His creation. That is totally contrary to the other gospels.
It also states Jesus said the following: “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life.” Jesus is then quoted as saying: “Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Gospel of Thomas vs. 114)
Talk about an anti-female bias! That’s NOT the Jesus we know from the Gospels!!!!!
Therefore, the Gospel of Thomas was not excluded by some church conspiracy to silence it. It excluded itself based on the previous criteria mentioned! It did not harmonize with the other testimony of the Scriptures.
So, by the time the "church" decided on the "canon" it was pretty much a done deal for centuries. All the books that were included in the Bible were already accepted as authoritative by the early church (meaning 1st century believers). Someone in this thread said that it's not an authoritative list of books but rather a list of authoritative books. That's a good description.
Think about it this way, Mozart wrote some pretty awesome music. Pretty much anybody who listened to his compositions agreed to that right away. Now, imagine a music critiquing committee decides to declare officially that Mozart's music is beautiful. We'd say, "thanks, but we already knew that." That's kinda the same with the canon of Scripture.
That's a lot to take in, I know and I'm sorry but I wanted to be as thorough as possible. I would suggest you copy and print this out otherwise you might go buggy trying to read all this on your computer.
If there is anything I didn't answer or you still have questions about, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 23, 2006 21:34:57 GMT -5
Shangxin wrote:
I am not attacking men, but rather the time which again produced men that were sexist. Peter, for example, was said to be very displeased about Mary Magdelene having an active role in the religion.
So if Jesus came in this time period do you think He would not chose 12 men today? Would God inspire Paul to write what he did only for those people in that time? Do you believe the Word of God is inspired or do you not?
As far as Peter's attitude towards Mary M., where did you hear that Peter had issue with her? Certainly not from scripture!
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 23, 2006 21:43:19 GMT -5
Well of course not from Scripture. That's part of the point of the thread, sillypants. And if you follow the other banned books you'd know that it's been said that Mary WAS one of his disciples and had her OWN Gospel, but that Peter was jealous of her. I think if Jesus had been chosen to live in today's world, he would have more women disciples among his twelve, yes. I think the word of God is inspired. But I also believe that words can be changed or ignored by people who have agendas--when the King James version was published in the older times, for example. Or how the reason we have so many sexual taboos was not because of religion, but because Constantine wanted to demonize the pagans, who were openly sexual. Or how sodomy actually meant rape.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 23, 2006 22:49:17 GMT -5
Okay, wonderful LOOONG post. Back to my first question!!
The "The Test of Scripture" ... where is the previous biblical justification for it?? And by that I mean, where in the OT does God list off such qualificaitions for the NT??
If not there, then where on EARTH did that test come from??
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 24, 2006 12:29:16 GMT -5
Shangxin:
Do you then think the Greek and Hebrew texts which are the basis for the English translation were corrupted? Did God really want Levitical women priests when He spoke to Moses and told him how to set up the tabernacle and priesthood? Remember the text Jesus spoke of as "scripture" and that He quoted so much from can be verified as still the ones from today, especially based on the dead sea scrolls.
If the disciples tried to erase Mary M. Why did they admit she saw Jesus before them? It would seem that if they were jealous as you claim, that would have been taken out of the gospels real quick, along with stories about how the women came to the cross while the men (except John) went and hid.
Please pray about what you are implying. Consider that what you might be doing is slander and gossip against not only the writers of the Bible, but Apostles of God who gave their life to spread the gospel.
As for the 12, you think then that God was being politically correct by choosing men only then? Since when did God care about being politically correct?
Jack Jackson
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 24, 2006 18:02:09 GMT -5
As for the first thing, I don't know. All I know is that my God does not look down on me as the weaker gender. My very life is an example of this. I have prayed to God to get me to art school, that I can pursue a life away from, coincidentally, domesticity and subservience, and every prayer has been answered.
I also seem to recall Jesus challenging a lot of Moses' laws...
I have already addressed Mary M. before, though maybe not in this thread. Mary seeing Jesus before any of Jesus' other male disciples was not a threat because there was nothing authoritative about it, nothing that would threaten a man's position as ruler (religious and secular).
As for the twelve and why God chose them, I think God merely chose more men than women because he knew the times, knew that Jesus had to get his message across, knew that saving souls was more important than gender issues. How many people would have listen if women had been more active in Jesus' campaign? Even his own followers once questioned him for talking with a woman once (the woman by the well).
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 24, 2006 22:02:39 GMT -5
Then Bible tells men to live in understanding with women, because they are the weaker vessel. Now before you get upset at that (which God wrote not me) look at it this way. A fine and beautiful china cup vs. a tin camping cup. The first is the women, the second the man. They are both equally affective at holding a liquid to drink. One is much more elogant than the other. One you handle delicately and the other can be thrown around and not hurt. At a fine dinner party, that metal cup would be laughable, but when camping it works well.
God used many women very well in the Bible. The women at the well actually lead most of village to hear Jesus, leading to them being saved. Deborah, Priscilla, Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Rahab, Sarah, Mary M., Mary (mother), and many other women were well respected and used mightily by God. There rolls were different than sending men 2 by 2 into unknown regions where they go beat up. Hard to say what they might have done to the women.
God set up the man as head over the women. That same God called all priests to be men. The same God apointed 12 men to head the church, because that is the way He decided the matter. God says "I God do not change" in Malachi, so His headship is still the same today. Don't fight with God. Accept your role for the short time you are hear. If everyone wanted to be an eye in the body of Christ, what a silly body it would be.
If God has a plan for you, He will certainly let you know. I pray He use you in a way that glorifies Him, as well gives you the desire of your heart. If you pray in His will, that will happen.
Jack Jackson
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 25, 2006 11:22:22 GMT -5
Ah, but if both a china cup and a tin cup hold water the same, why can't a woman preach and take an authoritative role in the church? It;s just speaking; no fighting or physical exertion involved.
Furthermore, what IS physical? Women can learn martial arts that could allow them to take on men twice their weight, can learn to fight and be strong and be equals in battle to men. It's all about conditioning and discipline. About POTENTIAL.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 25, 2006 13:22:00 GMT -5
The reason is because God created an ordained order (see 1 Cor 11:2-16). God has been very consistent from Genesis to Revelation about this order.
Man was created from the dirt of the earth, but women was created out of a man. She was brought forth to be his helpmeat, or helper, not to rule over him. Man's role was given as Spiritual leader in the family, whether he wants to take it or not, its his.
Since the man is to be the spiritual leader of the woman and their children, how a wife of a man be the Spiritual Leader of a church they attend, while being Biblically under the Spiritual leadership of her husband. It doesn't work. You might say, what if she is single? The Bible clearly teaches that the Bishop or leader of the church should be shown to run their family well first, so she would have to be married to prove that that was true, meaning she would have the same dilemma.
I do see women as having a role in the church though. They most certainly can have authority roles, but not on Biblical matters over men. That means she can be assigned women's studies, Sunday School for non-adult males, or managment rolls not dealing with doctrine. Proverbs 31 shows these type attributes in a women.
What if a women feels she has a message from the Lord? If she is prophesying, that is a whole other matter. Her message should be heard and weighed against scripture. If it is from the Lord, she should be able to speak to the church, but not take leadership over men, as scripture indicates.
Scripture also suggests that because Eve was beguild by Satan in the garden, it also shows that women might be more easily swayed, and therefore the leadership role was given to kept with the men. I think that could be reading too much into it.
Earlier you mentioned something to the effect that I had never had to be under the authority of a women. Just so you know, I was raised under the auithority of my Mother, in a house with two sisters. My Dad was there when I was young, but not while I was in parts of grade school and High School. I have also had jobs where women were bosses and never had a problem with it. God set up the authority of children under a Mom, and in a business, God doesn't say women can't lead men. Even Deborah was a Judge, but that role was not leadership so to speak, like a King or Levite might have.
Women for the majority, are the much better gender to raise children in a loving, patient, and instructional childhood. She is also better at keeping all in order in the household. God knew this when He made men and women. The more important role is making sure those kids get a good start in life. Anyone could bring home the earnings for the family, but while children are young, God's little ones are blessed with so many godly women, that pray for husband to finally put away his toys and get serious with life and lead their families spiritually.
Behind every good man is a good women, is a very true statement. My wife's support and prayers and upbringing of our children in homeschooling is amazing, and helps me be more free to minister to others in need. She see her role as freeing me to do this, and therefore the fruit is not mine, but ours, to His glory; the way He intended it to be.
Jack Jackson
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Aug 27, 2006 21:44:00 GMT -5
Umm, discrepancy!!!
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Aug 27, 2006 21:46:02 GMT -5
FYI, this attitude led to the abuse/rape/murder of many many many many women across the globe. This attitude is still expressed today in the form of abuse/rape/murder.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Aug 27, 2006 21:49:20 GMT -5
It never says that the SERPENT is SATAN.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 29, 2006 16:05:14 GMT -5
abb said: FYI, this attitude led to the abuse/rape/murder of many many many many women across the globe. This attitude is still expressed today in the form of abuse/rape/murder.
I disagree with you. Christ teaches man to love his wife and treat her as a part of his own body. It is not Christianity that leads to the items you list above, it is the failure to teach it to the thugs that would commit such crimes against anyone. A Father is to protect and love his daughters and keep them from harm until they can turn them over to a loving man who will also love and cherish them. A Father also needs to love and cherish his sons Mom (his wife) to demonstrate how that young boy should treat his wife once he gets married.
You describe a picture void of true Christianity.
Jack Jackson
|
|