You not hear yourself? The 4the century Catholic church used its own 'discernment' in selecting works that 'maintain doctrinal purity' as taught by the Catholic Church (what you euphemistically call 'the Christian community', 'Apostolic tradition' and 'Christianity'). Works that 'heretics' (ie non-Catholic) used were rejected to suppress. 'contradictory forms' and show only a 'unified message that aligns' with the Catholic church.
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat 167 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
joey jojo
The 19th century was a time of pseudoscience,medical quackery and blatant, un-regulated false advertising.
Combine this with the growing technology that allowed information to be spread faster and you have the perfect environment for charlatans to take advantage of unsuspecting and trusting people.
-
aqwsed12345
@peacefulpete
First, it’s essential to recognize that the early Church’s discernment process for the canon was about preserving apostolic teaching rather than constructing a uniquely “Catholic” doctrine. The Church Fathers and bishops of the fourth century were focused on maintaining the teachings that had been handed down from the apostles—a teaching common to all Christians of that time, not just “Catholics” in the sense of a single institution. Terms like “Apostolic tradition” and “Christian community” reflect this shared commitment to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as handed down consistently within the Church.
The Church’s rejection of certain texts was not about suppressing diversity for its own sake, but rather preserving doctrinal purity based on what the apostles taught. The Gnostic and other heretical texts presented ideas that were incompatible with core Christian beliefs (such as the physical resurrection of Christ, the goodness of creation, and the incarnation). These texts often contradicted the universally held doctrines taught by the apostles and retained in the earliest Christian writings. The purpose of the canon wasn’t to eliminate alternative voices but to ensure that what was passed down as Christian teaching truly aligned with the apostolic message.
The term “contradictory forms” isn’t about suppressing diversity in a general sense. Rather, it refers to teachings fundamentally at odds with the Christian message as received from the apostles. The early Church valued diversity in terms of local traditions and liturgical expressions, yet it also recognized that certain beliefs were incompatible with the faith handed down by the apostles. For example, Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas, often presented a different understanding of salvation, the nature of Jesus, and the purpose of creation—concepts that contradicted core elements of the Christian faith.
Many early Christian communities naturally gravitated towards a core group of writings they found reliable and consistent with apostolic teaching long before the fourth century. While some variation existed regarding a few books, the core of the New Testament was already in place by the second century. Fourth-century councils like Hippo and Carthage did not impose an entirely new canon; rather, they formally recognized a consensus that had already been forming within the Christian community. This consensus was rooted in apostolic tradition rather than the unilateral decision of the Catholic Church.
It’s worth noting that Protestants today accept the same New Testament canon determined by the early Church. This canon wasn’t chosen to fit a “Catholic agenda” but was recognized for its authenticity and apostolic origins. If the early Church had simply sought to suppress dissent, we wouldn’t see the high level of historical and theological rigor that went into discerning the canon over centuries. Instead, we see a careful and deliberate process aimed at preserving what was genuinely apostolic and essential to the Christian faith.
-
slimboyfat
The 19th century was a time of pseudoscience,medical quackery and blatant, un-regulated false advertising.
A bit like the 21st century then, only less so. 😁
-
-
aqwsed12345
Bart Ehrman’s perspective on the formation of the New Testament canon reflects a common historical-critical approach but requires careful response from a Catholic viewpoint to address misconceptions and inaccuracies. The Catholic understanding of how the New Testament canon was formed is rooted in both historical evidence and theological principles, and it differs significantly from Ehrman’s portrayal. The claim that the New Testament canon was formed solely through centuries of debate among church leaders without any definitive resolution until the Council of Trent (16th century) oversimplifies and misrepresents historical reality. While the canonization process was indeed gradual, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in discerning the canon. Lists of authoritative texts, such as those by St. Athanasius in his Festal Letter (AD 367) or the Synods of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397), show that by the late 4th century, a clear consensus had emerged on the 27 books of the New Testament. These local councils were not isolated but reflected the broader agreement within the universal Church. They affirmed rather than invented the canon. This understanding is consistent with the Church’s teaching authority, which was established by Christ himself (e.g., Matthew 16:18-19) and exercised through Apostolic succession.
Ehrman’s characterization of the canonization process as a "popularity contest" among literate elites neglects the theological foundation of the Church’s decisions. The canon was not determined by human preference but by the recognition of divine inspiration and Apostolic origin. Books like the Gospels and Paul’s letters were accepted not because they were merely popular but because they were understood to bear witness to the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The Church rejected texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas not arbitrarily but because they either lacked Apostolic authorship or contained teachings incompatible with orthodox Christianity.
Ehrman’s suggestion that Christianity’s exclusivity and insistence on a single truth led to the formation of the canon is accurate to an extent but misses the essential point. The Church’s commitment to one truth stems from Christ’s own claims (e.g., John 14:6) and the Apostolic mission to safeguard and proclaim this truth (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:15). The development of the canon was a natural outgrowth of this mission, ensuring that the faithful would have a reliable record of God’s revelation. The Church’s insistence on preserving orthodoxy was not a form of authoritarianism but a means of protecting the faithful from heresies that could distort the Gospel message.
Finally, the notion that the Council of Trent "invented" the canon in response to the Protestant Reformation is a common misconception. In reality, Trent reaffirmed the canon that had been consistently recognized by the Church for over a millennium. This reaffirmation was necessary to counter the reformers' rejection of certain books, such as the deuterocanonical texts, which had been included in the Septuagint and used by early Christians. The deuterocanonical books were accepted by the Church because they were part of the Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles used, as evidenced by numerous quotations and allusions in the New Testament.
The Catholic Church understands the canonization of the New Testament as a process guided by the Holy Spirit, rooted in the Church’s Apostolic authority, and confirmed through the discernment of early councils and theologians. Ehrman’s portrayal may resonate with a secular academic audience, but it overlooks the theological and ecclesial dimensions that are essential to understanding how and why the canon was formed. The Catholic Church did not arbitrarily decide the canon but faithfully discerned and safeguarded the books that truly convey God’s revelation to humanity.
-
Anony Mous
I have a suspicion Ehrman is a JW. He’s definitely friendly towards and copies a lot of the whackadoodle ideas resulting from the Miller-Smith feud of the 19th century, only ceding where he would totally blow his credibility.
-
NewLife
It is True, the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses have a better understanding of the scripture. However, they are currently lost in translation. I will make attempt to rectify that.
Estephan