stemelbow Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 It is only at the end of the 2nd century A.D. that the Gospels and other apostolic writings begin to be referred to as the "New Covenant"/"New Testament," but this was only in the generic sense. This was at a time when Gnostic heresies were especially rampant, which led normative Christianity to excise much of the authentic teachings of the Gospel due to guilt by association with Gnosticism (many Forty-Day teachings of Jesus to the Apostles were lost at this time). A sayings document such as the Gospel of Thomas may have preceded the Gospels, and scholars have long posited some sort of oral tradition (Q). Bishop Athanasius (Alexandria, Egypt) in 367 A.D. was the first to have referred to the Canon as the 27 books of the current NT, though some claim Origen had done so earlier (he died in 254 A.D.). Aside from that, we have a broad diversity of claims of canonicity through the 4th and 5th centuries, which belie any claim that the Canon was settled. The preferential lists vary enormously. That's a good summary, as I understand it, thanks. It's also the case the books like Matthew were probably written by someone we don't know, but attributed to Matthew to bring authority to the scripture. So though we treat it like a first hand account, it really is something else--written by someone based on oral traditions and other writings, including Mark, I believe it's theorized. And as some would suggest Matthew was written to be a better representation of what this anonymous writer thought was Jesus' gospel than Mark's. It's almost as if it was written to compete with the previously recorded gospel. This is what is reality concerning scripture though. It's not like what we have in our canon was written by the hand of God. 2
Freedom Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 This is what is reality concerning scripture though. It's not like what we have in our canon was written by the hand of God.This is something that is lost on the 'god breathed' concept. If God was so very concerned about having his scriptures being perfect, why didn't Jesus take a few hours each week to write the new testament himself rather than leaving it to his disciples. There is no evidence that He even instructed them to record what he was teaching so as far as the teachings of Jesus go in the new testament there is no need for a written book of scripture. 1
mnn727 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 The men who argued about which books and decided which to include in the canon and the Early Church Fathers belonged to the same church. Yes, that church won. The losers were the Gnostics, Valentinians, Sabellians, Arians, Marcionites, Ebionites, Docetists, and other heretical groups. They were only heretical because they lost, had they won then the "Early Church Fathers" would have been called heretics.Again; History is written by the winners. 2
carbon dioxide Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) They were only heretical because they lost, had they won then the "Early Church Fathers" would have been called heretics.Again; History is written by the winners.Heretic from dictionary.com 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. Far more important than being a heretic is the issue of being right or wrong. If being right makes one a heretic, that is far far better than being wrong and not being called a heretic. Calling someone a heretic is a more acceptable way of calling ones opponent stupid or and idiot because they don't agree with them Edited April 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
Robert F. Smith Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Heretic from dictionary.com 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. Far more important than being a heretic is the issue of being right or wrong. If being right makes one a heretic, that is far far better than being wrong and not being called a heretic. Calling someone a heretic is a more acceptable way of calling ones opponent stupid or and idiot because they don't agree with them So, are Mormons consciously proud heretics?
Vance Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Agreed. Sola scriptura approaches beg the question. On whose authority was the canonicity of the the NT determined? Since I'm Orthodox, the obvious answer for me is the Orthodox-Catholic church meeting in council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit made that determination. If it was indeed "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit", then what they determined should be canonized as scripture. Was it? If not, why not? The New Testament is scripture because that ancient church established by Christ through the apostles said so.Then the documentation of that determination should also be scripture. Is it? If the church that met in council was not the ancient church of Christ, then there's no reason to think any book in the NT is scripture.??? By what logic? As stated in the OP, scripture is God inspired. That is the true determination of whether something is scripture or not, REGARDLESS of whether the church that met in council was or was not the ancient church of Christ.
Freedom Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 IQuote If the church that met in council was not the ancient church of Christ, then there's no reason to think any book in the NT is scripture.??? By what logic? As stated in the OP, scripture is God inspired. That is the true determination of whether something is scripture or not, REGARDLESS of whether the church that met in council was or was not the ancient church of Christ. ??? By what logic? As stated in the OP, scripture is God inspired. That is the true determination of whether something is scripture or not, REGARDLESS of whether the church that met in council was or was not the ancient church of Christ. This logic works for me. If the council was not the ancient church then the new testament is not scripture. Unless a council of the true church did convene to make it so. This took place in the 1800s in the Eastern United states.
mfbukowski Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 That's a good summary, as I understand it, thanks. It's also the case the books like Matthew were probably written by someone we don't know, but attributed to Matthew to bring authority to the scripture. So though we treat it like a first hand account, it really is something else--written by someone based on oral traditions and other writings, including Mark, I believe it's theorized. And as some would suggest Matthew was written to be a better representation of what this anonymous writer thought was Jesus' gospel than Mark's. It's almost as if it was written to compete with the previously recorded gospel.This is what is reality concerning scripture though. It's not like what we have in our canon was written by the hand of God.And it's even more complicated than that. How do we know that "Matthew" is the Matthew we think he is?Was anything actually written by anyone who actually knew anyone who may or may not have had "authority from God"?
mfbukowski Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 So, are Mormons consciously proud heretics?I can quote at least one BYU professor who says we are "a-theists" if "theos" is taken as the god of the pagan greeks.
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I Nephi 20:1 originally read exactly like Is. 48:1 in the King James Bible. Now it reads, "...out of the waters of Judah or out of the waters of baptism." Apostle Mark E. Petersen said, "A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1" (As Translated Correctly, p. 14). Petersen was attempting to show how the B. of M. helped correct errors in the Bible, but he picked a very poor example because it is the B. of M. that has been changed! Neither the Hebrew text of Is. 48:1 nor the original B. of M. support the present reading of I Nephi 20:1. Even as late as the 1888 edition of the B. of M., that phrase was not in the text. The Inspired Version of Joseph Smith reads the same as original BOM and KJV So I can concluded it the BOM that has been corrupted and changed to benefit Mormonism
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng ". . .Additional InformationIn its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. . ." The LDS gospel includes everything that is required for exaltation. So both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are incomplete in that neither book (or taken as a whole) provide what is required for salvation/exaltation. Do you have the missing parts to conclude that
Robert F. Smith Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I Nephi 20:1 originally read exactly like Is. 48:1 in the King James Bible. Now it reads, "...out of the waters of Judah or out of the waters of baptism." Apostle Mark E. Petersen said, "A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1" (As Translated Correctly, p. 14). Petersen was attempting to show how the B. of M. helped correct errors in the Bible, but he picked a very poor example because it is the B. of M. that has been changed! Neither the Hebrew text of Is. 48:1 nor the original B. of M. support the present reading of I Nephi 20:1. Even as late as the 1888 edition of the B. of M., that phrase was not in the text. The Inspired Version of Joseph Smith reads the same as original BOM and KJVSo I can concluded it the BOM that has been corrupted and changed to benefit Mormonism Actually Joseph Smith himself made that addition to the text in 1840, perhaps as a way of clarifying the meaning (which was what Hugh Nibley opined). However, it also restores the poetic balance to the distichs in the poetry of Isaiah 48. Note the italics: 20:1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, "83*<;*" ;!'<&3/: Which are called by the name of Israel, -!9:* .:" .*!981% And are come forth out of the waters of Judah. &!7* %$&%* *//& Or out of the waters of baptism, Which swear by the name of the Lord, %&%* .:" .*3":1% And make mention of the God of Israel, &9*,'* -!9:* *%-!"& Yet they swear not in truth, ;/!" !- Nor in righteousness. %8$7" !-& 20:2 Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city, &!981 :$8% 9*3/<*, But they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, &,/21 -!9:* *%-!<-3& Which is the Lord of Hosts, Yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name. &/: ;&!"7 %&%* 1
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Actually Joseph Smith himself made that addition to the text in 1840, perhaps as a way of clarifying the meaning (which was what Hugh Nibley opined). However, it also restores the poetic balance to the distichs in the poetry of Isaiah 48. Note the italics: 20:1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, "83*<;*" ;!'<&3/: Which are called by the name of Israel, -!9:* .:" .*!981% And are come forth out of the waters of Judah. &!7* %$&%* *//& Or out of the waters of baptism, Which swear by the name of the Lord, %&%* .:" .*3":1% And make mention of the God of Israel, &9*,'* -!9:* *%-!"& Yet they swear not in truth, ;/!" !- Nor in righteousness. %8$7" !-& 20:2 Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city, &!981 :$8% 9*3/<*, But they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, &,/21 -!9:* *%-!<-3& Which is the Lord of Hosts, Yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name. &/: ;&!"7 %&%* Seems poetic enough for the KJV and the JST and original BOM
Recommended Posts