They were nor considered reliable or popular enough by the Church.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The testimony of the NT writers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
They were nor considered reliable or popular enough by the Church.
Or by anyone else.
How many real manuscripted copies do modern critics of the Bible have of those books? Do you want to put apocryphal books on the same level of transferred inspired books than came to us directly from the first century Christians? Seriously?
Why don't you open a thread about the reliability you do think the apocryphal books have?
This topic is not about that.
Who determined these, and only these, are 'inspired'?
The first century Christians.
The religious leadership of the third century church lacked the holy spirit, contrary to the early first century church. The holy spirit had given some first-century anointed Christians a very special gift that had to do with recognizing actual inspiration within written or spoken statements that were purported to arise from inspiration. So falsely alleged inspired authors could never get away with it as long as those anointed Christians were alive.
Read 1 Cor. 12:10 about "discernment of inspired utterances [or: spirits]".
The third century church could not change anything it had received.
You do realize that that is just a myth created by modern critics of the Bible, right?
Let's compare this with the Holocaust. Some people today do not believe that those events happened in real life, even if we still have a few victims alive and we can listen what they have to say. There are museums that remind us what happened then; documented history and eyewitnesses.
What will happen in a few years about the reliability of these accounts of the Holocaust? Will that change the history?
It is the same with the historicity of the events we can learn about in the NT records. When was the moment when "scholars" stopped believing those testimonies?
PS: The International Students of the Bible (who became later Jehovah's Witnesses) were also victims of the Holocaust. We got our own eyeswitnesses of those events.
Where does he say that? He literally says the opposite. I quoted it for you.
This is a non-response.
Yes Kenny we are. And how the Bible is viewed compared to other ancient writings. So my reply was perfect on topic.
Yes it was. And I replied to that.
You're conflating points here. No one said fundamentalists force people to believe. What I said is that belief in the infallibility of the Bible is a requirement for fundamentalist Christianity. In other words, it's integral for your worldview. Your worldview collapses if it's not true.
You don't understand why it's relevant to point out that your worldview is contingent on insisting that the Bible is completely true? Really? You don't grasp that?
You're either trying to miss the point or you have completely lost the plot of the conversation.
Your experience informs you it's plausible to believe people walk on water? When did you last do it? When did you last see someone do it?
If you're gonna act like miracle claims are just run of the mill, mundane things that anyone should just assume are true...I don't know how to have a conversation with you.
Generally they just don't believe in them at all. That's vastly more common, in my experience.
No facts were established. Paul's writings are the earliest we have from the New Testament canon. The Gospels came later. You knew that, right?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is not. You are listening to lying sources. Most Bibles note that all of the Gospels are anonymous.
And ironically it is all of the Bible scholars that will tell you that the Gospels were written anonymously. Just as all of the historians will tell you that the Holocaust was real. You are listening to apologists. AKA Liars For Jesus.
You should be asking how they know this since when one asks Christians that believe they came with those names on them their answer when asked the same question is usually crickets/
What evidence do you have that the Gospels were written by those whose names are on them?
Who told you that? The critics of the Bible?
Who told you that? The critics of the Bible?
Professional historians.
Did you think the Gospels were written before Paul's epistles like Galatians? Who told you that? A pastor or apologist?"Professional" according to whom? According to the critics of the Bible?Professional historians.
Well, let's not talk about qualifications anymore... bad business. You don't even know if I am a professional ... would that change something to you?
Let's talk about the actual proof of those statements. Why don't you open a topic about it and present those proves of those "professional historians"?
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Someone should make a chronological bible.Professional historians.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It took the Church a half-century and roughly a thousand bishops to select the [western] canon, and they often disagreed on what should be included, plus they left some to be decided upon later. They also wanted to bring those in Arianism aboard and had to compromise the Nicene Creed in order to do that.
"Professional" according to whom? According to the critics of the Bible?
No, I mean professional as in they are literally professional historians. They have graduate level education in history and Biblical studies and literally research these things for a living.
Are you? Talking about qualifications isn't bad business at all, it's quite relevant.
Which topic, exactly? So far the topic is whether the New Testament is a reliable source of information. I've now explained why it isn't quite clearly, I think. What did you want to discuss in further detail?
That is called question begging.
Interesting ... I wonder why they didn't add books that would surely have favored their new Neoplatonic philosophy. There were plenty of those out there at the time.