How do you determine which NT-era books are authoritative?

[hatsoff]

Way to go HatsOff!

An amateur attack upon the Words of Life and a snub of scholarly old Apothanein.....

I imagine most all of us are amateurs, here, certainly including Apothanein, but I would not call my words an "attack" on the Bible.

I was puzzled by the made-up word "deconversion".

It is not yet in the dictionary

It's slang, not a "made-up word." Still, I probably should not employ it in my discussions. Now that I think about it, I must admit there is a sort of remedial ring to it.

No wonder you so desperately want these books slashed from the Holy Bible!

I don't mind the 66-book canon. I'm just a bit curious as to what thought goes on about it nowadays in the minds of Christians.

Just to clarify, I'm not attacking your religion, but just had some questions. I only take issue with the folks who try to misrepresent the truth or throw around baseless accusations--especially those directed at me.

Edited February 13, 2007 by hatsoff

[Leonard]

Ak's response was pretty much what the Church Fathers themselves tell us was discussed at the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonean Councils. If you have other eye-witness sources who give a different story, I'd like to know who they are.

Now you have been seriously challenged to give the SOURCES upon which you base your rejection of the witness of the Church Fathers.

[hatsoff]

I'm sorry, but AK's response contained a slew of falsehoods, none of which seem to have been based on church councils. And those councils were certainly not composed of eyewitnesses to the original texts.

I'm not sure what kind of "sources" you expect me to produce. I've gone into great detail refuting his statements. If you need clarification on something, please be more specific.

Edited February 14, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

Where did I say the Didache was created in the third century?

The reason the Gospel of Thomas and others weren't accepted is:

- They weren't written until the end of the 3rd century

(emphasis added)

Although now that I look again you seem to have clarified that in post #12.

Likewise, as I stated, the only whole GoT that we have is in Coptic, and at best this can be dated to the late 4th century. The Greek fragments are in from the 3rd century. Prior to this, little is known. At best it would have been written early in the third century due to the writing style and philosophical input. The form of Gnosticism that it puts forth is far more advanced than Neo-Platonism or proto-Gnosticism. You won't find a single scholar that teaches it was composed in the first or second century.

Actually, you said that "the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is only known in Coptic," though I will forgive your poor wording. Ron Cameron has this to say on its dating:

The earliest possible date would be in the middle of the 1st century, when sayings collections such as the Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be toward the end of the 2d century, prior to the copying of P. Oxy. 1 and the first reference to the text by Hippolytus.

(thanks to Peter Kirby for the quotation)

And he is correct.

The paleographic dating of the Oxyrhynchus fragments alone is compelling evidence for a pre-third century date. Together with the Hippolytus quote, it is practically undeniable.

[apothanein kerdos]

Actually, you said that "the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is only known in Coptic," though I will forgive your poor wording. Ron Cameron has this to say on its dating:

The earliest possible date would be in the middle of the 1st century, when sayings collections such as the Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be toward the end of the 2d century, prior to the copying of P. Oxy. 1 and the first reference to the text by Hippolytus.

(thanks to Peter Kirby for the quotation)

No, he's not correct. He even states that this Gospel of Q (which has never been proven to exist, and is a modern invention with literally no proof) was first beginning to be compiled...even though the Gospels were written in the first century. This guy is HIGHLY unreliable:

1) For even believing in Q

2) For stating that it was compiled in the 2nd century when there's a lot of evidence that at least three of the Gospels were completed and in circulation by the end of the first century

3) There's no evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was being used in the 1st century, unless the writers was some type of genius and incorporated a philosophy that wouldn't develop for another 50-100 years

4) It didn't even harness a major threat or response until the fourth century even though it was purely Gnostic in origin

I mean, I'm even using Stephen Hoeller, who is a neo-Gnostic, biased, and not exactly accurate on certain Gnostic elements (he distorts it all IN FAVOR of Gnosticism), who even doubts a 1st century Gospel of Thomas.

[CSLewis]

How do you determine which NT-era books are authoritative?

Such a subjective question. The early church ecclesiastical authorities (based upon oral tradition that acknowledged national autonomy) created the canon.

Noone has the right to rethink the canon based upon doctrine or any other reason. (another reason to dislike the reformers.)

[hatsoff]

No, he's not correct. He even states that this Gospel of Q (which has never been proven to exist, and is a modern invention with literally no proof) was first beginning to be compiled...even though the Gospels were written in the first century. This guy is HIGHLY unreliable:

1) For even believing in Q

2) For stating that it was compiled in the 2nd century when there's a lot of evidence that at least three of the Gospels were completed and in circulation by the end of the first century

3) There's no evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was being used in the 1st century, unless the writers was some type of genius and incorporated a philosophy that wouldn't develop for another 50-100 years

4) It didn't even harness a major threat or response until the fourth century even though it was purely Gnostic in origin

I mean, I'm even using Stephen Hoeller, who is a neo-Gnostic, biased, and not exactly accurate on certain Gnostic elements (he distorts it all IN FAVOR of Gnosticism), who even doubts a 1st century Gospel of Thomas.

Q has never been "proven" to exist, no, but it is a perfectly logical construct based on the evidence. While it is too lengthy to discuss, here, Daniel Wallace has provided a succinct digest of the arguments at Bible.org. Consider his conclusions on the matter:

To sum up, that Q existed is a necessary postulate of Markan priority. For many scholars, this is the very weakness of that hypothesis. But given the severe problems of the other approaches to the interdependence of the gospels, Markan priority stands out as by far the most plausible. If it is true, then Q existed.

I subscribe to Q because it is the best explanation for the evidence. I don't think any scholar simply assumes that it exists without question, but it is a well-enough established hypothesis that it may be used, as Cameron has, to strengthen other arguments.

Also, you really should read more closely. He does not state that Q "was compiled in the 2nd century," but rather that the genre was only beginning to develop in the middle of the first. I wonder how much easier this discussion would go if we could but eliminate these miscommunications.

Despite your opinion, I find its philosophy to be fairly primitive, reminiscent of early Valentinian writings. Nevertheless, arguments of this nature are highly subjective, and far too untrustworthy for my taste (which is why I do not espouse a first-century date for GThomas, as a some do). But in the end I find no material which must not have been written in the first century, and the speculation of an early date certainly make good sense, though it is not usually compelling in the face of evidence for a second-century date. What exactly do you see in GThomas which is so incompatible with a second-century or earlier date?

Finally, you cannot show that it is Gnostic in origin (as opposed to orthodox with Gnostic redaction), nor can you eliminate the possibility that it was not discussed and rejected in the second century--not that an absence of resistance would prove much of anything.

Edited February 15, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

Q has never been "proven" to exist, no, but it is a perfectly logical construct based on the evidence. While it is too lengthy to discuss, here, Daniel Wallace has provided a succinct digest of the arguments at Bible.org. Consider his conclusions on the matter:

To sum up, that Q existed is a necessary postulate of Markan priority. For many scholars, this is the very weakness of that hypothesis. But given the severe problems of the other approaches to the interdependence of the gospels, Markan priority stands out as by far the most plausible. If it is true, then Q existed.

It's such a flimsy theory. For one, Mark is basic enough as is, and if anything fulfills the "Q" requirements. It is short, simple, to the point, and Matthew, Luke, and John could have all known of it at the time they wrote, and even used it as a reference. There is literally zero evidence, logical or hard evidence, that Mark had to use a reference point other than the disciples.

Despite your opinion, I find its philosophy to be fairly primitive, reminiscent of early Valentinian writings. Nevertheless, arguments of this nature are highly subjective, and far too untrustworthy for my taste (which is why I do not espouse a first-century date for GThomas, as a some do). But in the end I find no material which must not have been written in the first century, and the speculation of an early date certainly make good sense, though it is not usually compelling in the face of evidence for a second-century date. What exactly do you see in GThomas which is so incompatible with a second-century or earlier date?

Finally, you cannot show that it is Gnostic in origin (as opposed to orthodox with Gnostic redaction), nor can you eliminate the possibility that it was not discussed and rejected in the second century--not that an absence of resistance would prove much of anything.

So now you move it into the subjective realm of, "Well, we can't really know that." Why in the world did you enter into a debate, only to come back and say we can have no absolute epistemological foundation concerning the dating of the GoT? Have you read it? If so, how is it not Gnostic? At best, it is still written in a Hellenistic style and not in a Hebraic style (as the other Gospels), which puts doubts as to its origins.

[hatsoff]

I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm trying to be nice, but it's darn near impossible when you demonstrate such fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. I suggest you re-read my latest post and then edit your response to something a little bit more coherent.

Edited February 16, 2007 by hatsoff

[Guest]

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." (Psalms 119:11)

I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm trying to be nice, but it's darn near impossible when you demonstrate such fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. I suggest you re-read my latest post and then edit your response to something a little bit more coherent.

Fundamental I can do!

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Luke 21:33)

The Word on The Word

"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" (Psalms 119:103)

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalms 119:105)

"Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word." (Psalms 119:114)

"Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law." (Psalms 119:136)

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalms 119:140)

"The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live." (Psalms 119:144)

"Hear my voice according unto thy lovingkindness: O LORD, quicken me according to thy judgment." (Psalms 119:149)

"Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes." (Psalms 119:155)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalms 119:160)

"I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments." (Psalms 119:176)

(Malachi 4)

"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."

"And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts."

"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments."

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:"

"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

Fundamentally, that's my Lord Jesus Christ when He comes back!

He Is The Lion of Judah don't you know!

Maranatha!

Hallelujah!

Are you ready!