sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
First of all: What "faith" are you talking about??Hi Sojourner,
It seems there are contradicting ideas of biblical canon chronology...
"By the early 200s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation,[3] see also Antilegomena...
The next two hundred years followed a similar process of continual discussion throughout the entire Church, and localized refinements of acceptance. As the Church worked to become of one mind, the approximate completeness of agreement merged gradually closer to unity. This process was not yet complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, though substantial progress had been made by then. It has been conjectured that Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople may have been an early occasion for establishing a formal list of the canonical books, leading to later formal affirmations, though no concrete evidence exists to support the idea. Lacking an established list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[6] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[7] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419."
Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note how politics and religion were incorporated and likely wording changed to justify inquisition, crusades, etc.
IE: William Shakespear is believed to have helped polish the King James Version of the bible the year it was finished when Shakepeare was 46 and left his name in Psalms 46.
Was Shakespeare one of the Translators of the King James Bible? < Spiritual Life | CBN.com
I share this, not to destroy your faith, but to help build it on a stronger foundation.
Jesus repeatedly taught NOT to trust in men - to only trust in God... and that includes biblical writers & editors as imperfect men/women. Learn from them, but don't blindly obey them.
Jesus also repeatedly tried to help people see that the ONLY way you can be saved, the only way you can experience God, is WITHIN you.
And this makes sense experientially: you don't feel God in a tree, or even a temple - God is always felt by YOU, within YOU.
Second: None of your "history lesson" makes a whit of difference to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about writings that were extant long before the canonization process began -- let alone was concluded.
to wit: Most reputable scholars place the writing of Mark at just post-70 c.e., and I find no reason to dispute that finding.
Additionally, several scholars place the origin of Q (from which the writers of Matthew and Luke likely take their quotations of Jesus) at prior to 40 c.e. I find no reason to dispute that finding, either.
Even taking the more widely-accepted date of Mark (70 c.e.), we find that the idea of the parousia was written about as early as 40 years following Jesus -- not the "hundreds" that you pose here.