|
Post by StAnne on Sept 19, 2013 13:03:55 GMT -5
Tertullian (c. 160 to 230), bishop of Carthage, mentioned the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. He wrote that Hebrews was the work of Barnabas and in his judgment was worthy to be included in the canon. His successor, Cyprian (died c. 258), favoured the four Gospels, Acts, Paul epistles to seven churches, to Timothy and to Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. Biblical scholar Origen's (c. 185-255) collection of the New Testament books was preserved in Eusebius' Church History, written in c. 324. "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, `The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John."
www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/CanonOfTheNewTestament.aspx
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 19, 2013 15:29:48 GMT -5
Thanks St. Anne. Always interested in how the different histories come together. From what I'm seeing in the above, Paul made quite an impact on the future of Christianity. I have never been a fan of Paul. But the above was interesting reading.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 19, 2013 15:54:55 GMT -5
The eternal Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — existed forever in the communion of love before time began. But when the three Persons of the Trinity created the heavens and the earth, the story of the Trinity broke into human history and changed everything. That, of course, is a faith statement.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 19, 2013 16:06:00 GMT -5
One of the things you will find VERY difficult to uncover is the fact that in the beginning what has now become the Roman Catholic Church was adamantly opposed to the idea that Jesus was a divine character. That is why the gospel according to John almost never made it into the Bible -- it is the only gospel of the four in which Jesus calls himself the "Son of God". The most offending phrase in the gospel was the mention that he had "been made flesh." That later changed by the time Constantine was looking for a form of Christianity that would unite his empire. The concept of a god taking on a human form and coming to earth was straight from Greek mythology, and something Paul, as a Hellenized Jew, would have been educated in as a Roman citizen. That may also be the reason the majority of writings in the NT are attributed to Paul. But choosing that brand of Christianity at the time of Constantine was undoubtedly a political move because the idea of a descended deity would appeal to a population educated in the Greek tradition. That's very interesting about the belief, but I had also heard that John just about didn't make it. I always assumed it was because it was more mystical in nature than the synoptic gospels. Makes sense about Paul being the one whose writing dominates the NT. Constantine was a pagan in many ways, so having a God impregnate a human female would have been familiar and acceptable to him. So a divine human is right on in his estimation. After all weren't kings and emperors considered extensions of God in their own right? He was trying desperately to stabilize the Roman Empire and a religion that would help with that. However, poor Constantine just had to put fires out amongst the bishops that were all trying to kill or excommunicate each other depending on what their belief about the Trinity was. This book is fascinating reading. There was so much bloodshed and violence between the opposing sides. Constantine was a Pagan most of his life. His mother is supposed to have become a Christian, and he became a Christian himself when his death became imminent. It was reported that he postponed becoming a Christian as long as he could because at the time being a Christian meant that you would not kill for the state. He’s lucky he wasn’t assassinated! Have you come to the part where the Christians used to barbecue each other on a brazier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 16:10:26 GMT -5
The eternal Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — existed forever in the communion of love before time began. But when the three Persons of the Trinity created the heavens and the earth, the story of the Trinity broke into human history and changed everything. That, of course, is a faith statement. To a person of faith, it's a statement of fact!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 19, 2013 16:16:43 GMT -5
That, of course, is a faith statement. To a person of faith, it's a statement of fact! Yes, sometimes that is true -- especially with the ones who don't know the difference between the two.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 19, 2013 16:36:01 GMT -5
That's very interesting about the belief, but I had also heard that John just about didn't make it. I always assumed it was because it was more mystical in nature than the synoptic gospels. Makes sense about Paul being the one whose writing dominates the NT. Constantine was a pagan in many ways, so having a God impregnate a human female would have been familiar and acceptable to him. So a divine human is right on in his estimation. After all weren't kings and emperors considered extensions of God in their own right? He was trying desperately to stabilize the Roman Empire and a religion that would help with that. However, poor Constantine just had to put fires out amongst the bishops that were all trying to kill or excommunicate each other depending on what their belief about the Trinity was. This book is fascinating reading. There was so much bloodshed and violence between the opposing sides. Constantine was a Pagan most of his life. His mother is supposed to have become a Christian, and he became a Christian himself when his death became imminent. It was reported that he postponed becoming a Christian as long as he could because at the time being a Christian meant that you would not kill for the state. He’s lucky he wasn’t assassinated! Have you come to the part where the Christians used to barbecue each other on a brazier? No haven't got that far. They did that!! Yikes! I'm just to the part where Arius is about to be admitted back into the Church of Alexandria at Constantine's demand and he dies. Athanisius didn't want to let him back in and barred the doors of the church. Then he conveniently dies that night. Looked like he was poisoned which apparently was one of the ways they got rid of each other too. It's truly amazing that any of these bishops could think they were led by God or the Holy Spirit the way they had no qualms about killing each other!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 19, 2013 16:40:49 GMT -5
Constantine was a Pagan most of his life. His mother is supposed to have become a Christian, and he became a Christian himself when his death became imminent. It was reported that he postponed becoming a Christian as long as he could because at the time being a Christian meant that you would not kill for the state. He’s lucky he wasn’t assassinated! Have you come to the part where the Christians used to barbecue each other on a brazier? No haven't got that far. They did that!! Yikes! I'm just to the part where Arius is about to be admitted back into the Church of Alexandria at Constantine's demand and he dies. Athanisius didn't want to let him back in and barred the doors of the church. Then he conveniently dies that night. Looked like he was poisoned which apparently was one of the ways they got rid of each other too. It's truly amazing that any of these bishops could think they were led by God or the Holy Spirit the way they had no qualms about killing each other! You can't read that stuff quickly and take it all in, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 19, 2013 16:58:30 GMT -5
No haven't got that far. They did that!! Yikes! I'm just to the part where Arius is about to be admitted back into the Church of Alexandria at Constantine's demand and he dies. Athanisius didn't want to let him back in and barred the doors of the church. Then he conveniently dies that night. Looked like he was poisoned which apparently was one of the ways they got rid of each other too. It's truly amazing that any of these bishops could think they were led by God or the Holy Spirit the way they had no qualms about killing each other! You can't read that stuff quickly and take it all in, that's for sure. No, it's not a quick read. It is a really insightful read though.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 19, 2013 18:42:01 GMT -5
It's truly amazing that any of these bishops could think they were led by God or the Holy Spirit the way they had no qualms about killing each other! God wills it! For the greater good!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 19, 2013 18:49:32 GMT -5
It's truly amazing that any of these bishops could think they were led by God or the Holy Spirit the way they had no qualms about killing each other! God wills it! For the greater good! Is it for the greater good to accuse - particularly laying blame to the bishops - when one doesn't know who or how for certain?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 19, 2013 19:30:51 GMT -5
God wills it! For the greater good! Is it for the greater good to accuse - particularly laying blame to the bishops - when one doesn't know who or how for certain? You mean its OK for bishops to kill one another?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 19, 2013 19:40:50 GMT -5
Is it for the greater good to accuse - particularly laying blame to the bishops - when one doesn't know who or how for certain? You mean its OK for bishops to kill one another? We don't know that bishop killed bishop in Arius' situation. It isn't okay to violate any of the Ten Commandments.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 19, 2013 22:34:01 GMT -5
You mean its OK for bishops to kill one another? We don't know that bishop killed bishop in Arius' situation. It isn't okay to violate any of the Ten Commandments. It isn't okay to violate any of the Ten Commandments -- except this one, of course: You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 20, 2013 3:40:58 GMT -5
That assumes God's son wasn't deserving of worship. The definition of a charismatic leader figure does not include the term "deserving", if I remember correctly. Why'd you say it was?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 20, 2013 3:44:09 GMT -5
To a person of faith, it's a statement of fact! Yes, sometimes that is true -- especially with the ones who don't know the difference between the two. Can you tell me what a fact is precisely, if faith is not involved in believing it?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 20, 2013 8:27:46 GMT -5
We don't know that bishop killed bishop in Arius' situation. It isn't okay to violate any of the Ten Commandments. It isn't okay to violate any of the Ten Commandments -- except this one, of course: You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Let's not leave off the phrase that speaks to the sin part. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, Or, you can refer to the passages where God commanded images be made - The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. Numbers 21:8-9
You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat.” Exodus 25:18-20
For flesh-hooks also, and bowls, and censers of fine gold, and for little lions of gold, according to the measure he gave by weight, for every lion. In like manner also, for lions of silver he set aside a different weight of silver.
And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the Cherubims, spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord: that I might understand all the works of the pattern. 1 Chronicles 28:17-19
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2013 16:21:20 GMT -5
The definition of a charismatic leader figure does not include the term "deserving", if I remember correctly. Why'd you say it was? I said it because Jesus' being a charismatic leader does not eliminate him from the "cult" definition umbrella -- just because Jesus is "deserving". Remember - I don't subscribe to the negative religious definition that only things I believe to be wrong can be cults. ALL religions, without exception, have cult practices whether the leaders are deserving or not.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2013 16:25:59 GMT -5
Yes, sometimes that is true -- especially with the ones who don't know the difference between the two. Can you tell me what a fact is precisely, if faith is not involved in believing it? A fact is something for which one can find empirical proof. I can't make a whole philosophical discussion about this.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2013 16:39:51 GMT -5
It isn't okay to violate any of the Ten Commandments -- except this one, of course: You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Let's not leave off the phrase that speaks to the sin part. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, Or, you can refer to the passages where God commanded images be made - The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. Numbers 21:8-9
You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat.” Exodus 25:18-20
For flesh-hooks also, and bowls, and censers of fine gold, and for little lions of gold, according to the measure he gave by weight, for every lion. In like manner also, for lions of silver he set aside a different weight of silver.
And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the Cherubims, spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord: that I might understand all the works of the pattern. 1 Chronicles 28:17-19 Remember the flack I got on TMB when I said the Bible was full of contradictions -- quite an uproar it was. Where the heck would Christianity be if there weren't hundreds of people who were creative enough to think of neat little explanations for all the "buts" in the Bible? I'm supposed to be the one who doesn't believe the Bible -- yet I think the people who wrote the Bible said exactly what they believed and meant. It is not me who has a problem with the obvious fact that the different writers disagreed with each other -- that's only a problem for people who can't accept the writers for what they really said. Oh well. You helped me make my point.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 20, 2013 16:56:57 GMT -5
Oh well. You helped me make my point. You know, the Advent/Christmas Season is approaching (and Christmas decorations are already in many stores). While some Protestants have statuary, even the ones who don't ordinarily will soon be getting out their nativity graven images.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 17:13:24 GMT -5
Can you tell me what a fact is precisely, if faith is not involved in believing it? A fact is something for which one can find empirical proof. I can't make a whole philosophical discussion about this. Hey Lee, it's the short words that are the tough ones eh? One of the tests for a fact is whether it requires faith. If it does require faith, it's not a fact. Facts, however, can be used to form faith. The way I arrive at faith is this: Evidence + related facts + reason = faith. Without using those three components, it is blind faith which is probably an antonym to fact. Faith is at best the poor substitute for facts.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2013 19:31:44 GMT -5
Oh well. You helped me make my point. You know, the Advent/Christmas Season is approaching (and Christmas decorations are already in many stores). While some Protestants have statuary, even the ones who don't ordinarily will soon be getting out their nativity graven images. They sure do. Actually, I think the whole idea that Christians keep the 10 commandments is one of the biggest farces going. I suspect a majority of them couldn't even tell you what they are without reading them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2013 19:38:32 GMT -5
A fact is something for which one can find empirical proof. I can't make a whole philosophical discussion about this. Hey Lee, it's the short words that are the tough ones eh? One of the tests for a fact is whether it requires faith. If it does require faith, it's not a fact. Facts, however, can be used to form faith. The way I arrive at faith is this: Evidence + related facts + reason = faith. Without using those three components, it is blind faith which is probably an antonym to fact. Faith is at best the poor substitute for facts. All faith is blind faith -- it has no empirical proof, despite the evidence, the related facts, and reason. What is that expression -- the substance of things not seen?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 20, 2013 20:52:24 GMT -5
You know, the Advent/Christmas Season is approaching (and Christmas decorations are already in many stores). While some Protestants have statuary, even the ones who don't ordinarily will soon be getting out their nativity graven images. They sure do. Actually, I think the whole idea that Christians keep the 10 commandments is one of the biggest farces going. I suspect a majority of them couldn't even tell you what they are without reading them. Mmmm ... I'm guessing that besides the Christians who are taught the Commandments by number and content in religious ed and Sunday School, a good many others have a pretty good idea of the content. I don't recall being taught them by memory as a 2x2 youth - although I knew the gist.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 23, 2013 20:33:26 GMT -5
I said it because Jesus' being a charismatic leader does not eliminate him from the "cult" definition umbrella -- just because Jesus is "deserving". Remember - I don't subscribe to the negative religious definition that only things I believe to be wrong can be cults. ALL religions, without exception, have cult practices whether the leaders are deserving or not. Sure. What you're denying by default is Christianity's claim that Jesus represented a faultless ideology. When I say faultless, I mean an ideology that won't let you down midst all of the other 'smelly little orthodoxies' competing for our minds ( to quote Orwell.) What's your opinion of him?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 23, 2013 21:21:20 GMT -5
A fact is something for which one can find empirical proof. I can't make a whole philosophical discussion about this. Hey Lee, it's the short words that are the tough ones eh? One of the tests for a fact is whether it requires faith. If it does require faith, it's not a fact. Facts, however, can be used to form faith. The way I arrive at faith is this: Evidence + related facts + reason = faith. Without using those three components, it is blind faith which is probably an antonym to fact. Faith is at best the poor substitute for facts. Facts are like lab or statistical data, they must be interpreted. Contextualization, obvious as the process might be is just one part of the process of interpretation.... The aesthetic of truth is one of the transcendent Graces. Though it's substance is empirically unproven, its polarizing quality is indispensable to atheists and believers.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 23, 2013 21:42:46 GMT -5
The aesthetic of truth is one of the transcendent Graces. Even though it's substance is empirically unproven, its polarizing quality is as indispensable to atheists as believers. aesthetic truth, transcendent grace ... be careful, you'll be making our atheists a bit jumpy if they know all that is following them around - and they can't even see it.
|
|