Even if you take the extreme view of o fainoV , a knowledge of the literary milieu from which the early Christian writings including the Bible were drawn from is still necessary. Scripture interprets scripture so the dictum goes, but Scripture does not interpret local idioms, puns, metaphor and other literary devices
Books and letters that are not part of the Bible
by sinis 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Shining One
The Catholic church (as we know it) was not in existence at the time the accepted books were circulating. Just because they later compiled a Latin version of the books plus apocrypha does not make them the final word..
Rex -
GermanXJW
The Watchtower-Book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” contains a chart on page 303 "Outstanding Early Catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures" about which Bible books were included in the catalogues and which were not. It lists all the NT books and showes if they were accepted or not in the specific catalogue. But - it would be interesting to know about the books that were also contained but are not considered as inspired today.
After my exit I read a German NT that contains ALL the available early church writings. Very revealing.
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3458169709/qid=1137790945/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/028-0175913-2678922 -
Narkissos
Rex,
The Catholic church (as we know it) was not in existence at the time the accepted books were circulating. Just because they later compiled a Latin version of the books plus apocrypha does not make them the final word.
Obfuscating. When did the Catholic church start? Define "circulating" in a way that applies only to the (later) "accepted books"...
You can't evade the simple equation: Protestant (= JW) Bible canon = Pharisaic OT canon (defined against other types of Judaism, e.g. the Hellenistic, Essene, Nazarene etc.) + Catholic NT canon (defined against other types of Christianity, e.g. Gnostic, Marcionite etc.).
-
Terry
Obfuscating. When did the Catholic church start? Define "circulating" in a way that applies only to the (later) "accepted books"...
I notice you use a capital "C".
The UNIVERSAL church must needs be a church that encompasses ALL believers and wields power over them. As soon as that fella Constantine embraced the philosophy of Christianity he bought a package deal that included much diversity.
Just as there was no PURE Christianity (due to conflicting beliefs and practices); there could be no PURE Catholic Church. Except for one thing....
The power of the emperor.
The manner in which the emperor causes things to be or not to be constitutes the actuality of the empire.
So too the canonicity of belief.
Nobody really knew what dogma was, but, they were pretty sure what THEY felt it SHOULD BE was what it needed to be.
So, the process began.
The officials of the various sects, churches, missions and such jumped into the sausage grinder and Eusebius and the emperor turned the crank.
At what point did the official sausage link fall out?
I'd say with the Nicene Creed.
T.
-
Leolaia
So.....if there is such an inherent dichotomy between canonical scripture and extracanonical works, how is it that a passage originating in a "spurious" work (1 Enoch 1:9) has become part of the Bible (Jude 14-15), while the work being quoted is itself rejected?
(And it isn't just that one isolated passage was used, the epistle of Jude shows repeated familiarity with the language and ideas of 1 Enoch, as do other NT books and early Christian writings)
-
Narkissos
I notice you use a capital "C".
That was in reply to Rex, "the Catholic church (as we know it)".
The UNIVERSAL church must needs be a church that encompasses ALL believers and wields power over them. ; As soon as that fella Constantine embraced the philosophy of Christianity he bought a package deal that included much diversity.
Not the whole early Christian diversity though. The "catholic church" or "great church" which Constantine found suitable to his agenda in the 4th century had already gotten rid of a lot of early Christian schools (Judeo-Christians such as the Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, etc.). It had only gathered the centripetal fractions of those schools around the dominant Christian model, already emerging in Luke-Acts and the Pastorals for instance.
As to the formation of the canon see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#XIX
-
greendawn
What we know as the catholic church does not quite coincide with the early church. Originally there was the catholic orthdox church that around the year 1000 AD split up into the Western (Roman) Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church over rather trivial religious differences, the real reasons were political.
I love the Didache book because it is one of the earliest genuine christian works written some time between 50 and 100 AD, in apostolic times, and gives us a good picture of the primitive church.
It should have been a canonical book. -
Terry
Not the whole early Christian diversity though. The "catholic church" or "great church" which Constantine found suitable to his agenda in the 4th century had already gotten rid of a lot of early Christian schools (Judeo-Christians such as the Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, etc.). It had only gathered the centripetal fractions of those schools around the dominant Christian model, already emerging in Luke-Acts and the Pastorals for instance.
Yes, the attrition was the result of violence enacted by Christians on other Christians! Riots, torture, church burning,stonings, etc. weren't just the balliwick of pagan Roman minions; there was little in any of the major confrontations that bespoke the nature of Jesus and his peace on Earth philosophy. The entire structure of early Christianity was fragments and clusters of brutes convinced to the core how very right they were and how very wrong everybody else was.
Things haven't changed much in two thousand years and are just as non-reflective of that peaceful Jesus.
T.
-
Shining One
Hey Terry,
Will you consider living by the teachings of Christ and ignore the denominational blather? Isn't what He taught about having a relationship with Him? Viz; "If you obey me you love me"; "I call you friends", etc. Isn't true, radical Christianity NOT about religion but about living a life that truly is unselfish, being abandoned to the obedience of the Lord's teachings and example?
I believe that is is illogical to consider the teachings of Christ false because the alleged followers do not really live what the Lord teaches. You cannot condemn Chrsitianity, you can only condemn Christendom. What does your heart and your mind tell you when you really consider this?
Rex