An Orthodox view of a Fundamentalist

[mojoala]

This was written by a poster named FundieFighter:

The vast majority of credible exegetes and scriptural scholars have admitted and realized that the NT Scriptures were not written by actual eyewitnesses to the life of Christ. Rather, they are mid-late 1st century narrative collections of the accumulated traditions about Jesus' life, His sayings, etc., that emanated from sources that had once been eyewitnesses. Paul, for example, never met the earthly Christ. "Luke" never met the earthly Christ. "Mark" was not one of the apostles. Many of Paul's letters are quite blatantly regarded as being pseudonymous, etc.

Does this detract from faith in the overall Gosepl truth? Only for the fundamentalist.

The fundamentalist places his/her primary faith in pen-and-ink (a Bible) rather than in the actual Person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the realities of Biblical origin dash their faith. It is important to remember that Jesus Himself is the only *Word* of God--the Word Made Flesh. If there were no printing presses, pens, paper, or Bibles in the world, this truth would still have been handed down to us over the centuries.

Fundamentalists generally favor the "letter of the Law" over the "spirit of the Law." To convince them to accept the reality of Biblical science, history, and proper interpretation is to dash their faith, since their faith rests primarily in a book, rather than in the Lord about Whom the diverse and various book(s) were composed-- as just *one* form of early Christian witness--part of the overall tradition.

I do not ascribe to any "Jesus Seminar." I ascribe to the source-critical, *reasonable* and historically relevant method of understanding the different Scriptural books--*within* context, rather than *out* of context.

Faith,rests primarily in the person of Jesus Christ, not in the Bible. Jesus is bigger than the Bible, and the Bible emerged from the tradition of the early Church--not the other way around. Also, I believe that those who love Jesus Christ, believe in Him, and "live" that belief in a working faith are members of the One True Church. Being Orthodox there is respect for the Bishop (and Church) of Rome, but not belief in the Pope's infallibility or primacy. Our priests are allowed to marry (as was the practice for the first 1000 years of all Christianity).Also, statues are not allowed--pictures and painted artworks only--"icons." Their purpose is to inspire, teach and draw our minds to contemplate the greater truth, just as pen-and-ink provide images that form letters of Scripture to inspire and teach. Etc.

I do agree that "tradition" (which is the living, inspired witness of faith that produced the Scriptures, the Councils, the Apostles Creed, liturgies, etc.) does indeed adapt and change with the times. Its core truths do not change, but our application and perception of the Gospel develops and "deepens" as Christian history grows with human understanding, reason, and spiritual perspective. It's important to remember that ALL "revelation" is contained solely and fully in the person of Jesus Christ--not in a Bible, or in a Council, or in any other single source.

As for Mary, I also agree that the best way to understand her role is by understanding Jesus--what was God's plan for salvation? How did God first set that plan of salvation into human history via the astonishing miracle of the Incarnation? Which person was the first invited to welcome the living God into "time," by an act of faith that preceded and prefigured all future acts of Christian faith? Which human individual was first invited to uniquely collaborate with God in the actualization of redemption on earth through accepting the Person of Jesus? Which human person was, by faith, given to Christians as a spiritual mother-figure (not as a deity) from the Cross? Which person, because of the first act of welcoming Jesus--by faith and in her own flesh--became the true spiritual mother of all future believers? There, you'll find Mary--a free human creature, uniquely graced, preeminently graced, and defined solely by her reaction and relationship to God's saving plan in the person of her Son: Jesus.

As we believe that God is "God of the Living and not of the Dead," pray with Mary as much or as little as you wish. It's merely part of the same fabric that allows all Christians the privilege to pray for each other. When Christians pray for and with each other, they are strengthening the bond they share in the one Mediator: Jesus. Christians alive on earth (or alive in heaven) intercede for each other solely as a way of empowering each other and drawing closer in Jesus. Mary is a unique Christian in the "fellowship" of believers. But whenever *any* fellow believer (wherever) prays with us and for us, we draw draw strength and comfort as a fellowship in the Body of Christ.

Peace all...

At least I found it interesting, what about you?

 

[Jim1999]

Where, o where, did I put that dustbin? It takes you nowhere and leaves you there. Pity!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John of Japan]

Where, o where, did I put that dustbin? It takes you nowhere and leaves you there. Pity!

Cheers,

Jim

Put it there and leave it there. I didn't find it interesting, I found it ridiculous.

This diatribe is so full of straw men and mischaracterizations, if we were to answer it, this "FundieFighter" would simply add more of the same.

The NT was not written by eyewitnesses? Fundamentalists believe in the Bible instead of Jesus? Favor the "letter of the law" over the "spirit of the law?" "It's important to remember that ALL "revelation" is contained solely and fully in the person of Jesus Christ--not in a Bible, or in a Council, or in any other single source."

This guy is seriously liberal. Let him throw away his Bible. I certainly won't.

 

[BobRyan]

they are mid-late 1st century narrative collections of the accumulated traditions about Jesus' life, His sayings, etc., that emanated from sources that had once been eyewitnesses. Paul, for example, never met the earthly Christ. "Luke" never met the earthly Christ. "Mark" was not one of the apostles. Many of Paul's letters are quite blatantly regarded as being pseudonymous, etc.

Does this detract from faith in the overall Gosepl truth? Only for the fundamentalist.

The fundamentalist places his/her primary faith in pen-and-ink (a Bible) rather than in the actual Person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the realities of Biblical origin dash their faith. It is important to remember that Jesus Himself is the only *Word* of God--the Word Made Flesh. If there were no printing presses, pens, paper, or Bibles in the world, this truth would still have been handed down to us over the centuries.

AHHH you seem to be longing for the days of the dark ages when the RCC really "had it good". No Bibles for printing cause no printing presses!!

What a great time that was for humanity. Nothing but the inquisition to guide the Christian church and no worries about those rotten Bibles given out so that people could "STUDY the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things told to them WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

Now those were the good old days for the RCC!! No question about it!!

IF only....

And the idea that the Holy Spirit did not DIRECTLY communicate with Paul -- but rather Paul had to rely on Catholic "traditions" instead of direct contact with God the Holy Spirit - now THERE is a myth that you never get tired of hearing if you are married to the dark ages!!

However "POPE PETER" said in 2Peter 1 that "NO scripture is a matter of one persons interpretation - but rather holy men of old MOVED BY THE SPIRIT of GOD spoke FROM GOD"

Now THAT is something that believers in "God's Word" never tire of hearing...

Oh well - to each his own.

Sadly for the RCC POV - Pope Peter did not say "Holy men of old had nothing but church tradition to guide them in writing scripture" --

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

This was written by a poster named FundieFighter:

The vast majority of credible exegetes and scriptural scholars have admitted and realized that the NT Scriptures were not written by actual eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.
...
Many of Paul's letters are quite blatantly regarded as being pseudonymous, etc.

Of course, the definition of "credible" is in the eye of the beholder. In many circles, any person who accepts the evidence on traditional authorships is a priori dismissed from "credible" just for accepting that evidence. In other circles, it is an open question. In other circles, anyone who rejects the evidence for traditional authorship is dismissed as `unreliable.'

The fundamentalist places his/her primary faith in pen-and-ink (a Bible) rather than in the actual Person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the realities of Biblical origin dash their faith. It is important to remember that Jesus Himself is the only *Word* of God--the Word Made Flesh. If there were no printing presses, pens, paper, or Bibles in the world, this truth would still have been handed down to us over the centuries.

Without Scripture, how would we know what Jesus said? We could pick up a few from early church writings that were preserved by `word of mouth,' but most would be lost.

Fundamentalists generally favor the "letter of the Law" over the "spirit of the Law." To convince them to accept the reality of Biblical science, history, and proper interpretation is to dash their faith, since their faith rests primarily in a book, rather than in the Lord about Whom the diverse and various book(s) were composed-- as just *one* form of early Christian witness--part of the overall tradition.

I do not ascribe to any "Jesus Seminar." I ascribe to the source-critical, *reasonable* and historically relevant method of understanding the different Scriptural books--*within* context, rather than *out* of context.

In Orthodox works, the person is told to interpret Scripture in the context of church teaching.

Fundamentalists generally favor the "letter of the Law" over the "spirit of the Law." To convince them to accept the reality of Biblical science, history, and proper interpretation is to dash their faith, since their faith rests primarily in a book, rather than in the Lord about Whom the diverse and various book(s) were composed-- as just *one* form of early Christian witness--part of the overall tradition.
...
Faith,rests primarily in the person of Jesus Christ, not in the Bible. Jesus is bigger than the Bible, and the Bible emerged from the tradition of the early Church--not the other way around.

This is a common theological liberal approach: set Jesus and Scripture against each other. However, if Scripture comes from God per 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV) and Jesus is a person in the Triune God of Orthodox theology, they should be in complete agreement -- Jesus would be a person in the Author of Scripture.

Personally, my faith is in the God Who gave us the Bible as He revealed Himself therein -- not a construct based upon my non-Scripture opinions.

the Bible emerged from the tradition of the early Church
...
I do agree that "tradition" (which is the living, inspired witness of faith that produced the Scriptures, the Councils, the Apostles Creed, liturgies, etc.)

In this, the author is claiming credit to the Orthodox church for something that the Scriptures give GOD authority for. 2 Timothy 3:16 indicates that the ultimate Author of Scripture is God.

As for Mary, I also agree that the best way to understand her role is by understanding Jesus--what was God's plan for salvation? How did God first set that plan of salvation into human history via the astonishing miracle of the Incarnation? Which person was the first invited to welcome the living God into "time," by an act of faith that preceded and prefigured all future acts of Christian faith? Which human individual was first invited to uniquely collaborate with God in the actualization of redemption on earth through accepting the Person of Jesus? Which human person was, by faith, given to Christians as a spiritual mother-figure (not as a deity) from the Cross? Which person, because of the first act of welcoming Jesus--by faith and in her own flesh--became the true spiritual mother of all future believers? There, you'll find Mary--a free human creature, uniquely graced, preeminently graced, and defined solely by her reaction and relationship to God's saving plan in the person of her Son: Jesus.

As we believe that God is "God of the Living and not of the Dead," pray with Mary as much or as little as you wish. It's merely part of the same fabric that allows all Christians the privilege to pray for each other. When Christians pray for and with each other, they are strengthening the bond they share in the one Mediator: Jesus. Christians alive on earth (or alive in heaven) intercede for each other solely as a way of empowering each other and drawing closer in Jesus. Mary is a unique Christian in the "fellowship" of believers. But whenever *any* fellow believer (wherever) prays with us and for us, we draw draw strength and comfort as a fellowship in the Body of Christ.

I found it sad that this author would show more respect for Mary than to Scripture.

Assuming this is a layperson's piece, I wonder what the Orthodox clergy would think of such a piece -- especially on its overtures to theological liberalism.

 

[John of Japan]

Well put, Darron! :thumbs:

 

[Darron Steele]

Thank you John.

To be sure: Mary should be respected and honored. What bothered me was that Mary was shown an extra-biblical amount of exhaltation while Scripture was scorned.

 

[Martin]

The vast majority of credible exegetes and scriptural scholars have admitted and realized that the NT Scriptures were not written by actual eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.

==That is a highly misleading statement. First only two of the Gospels claim to have been written by eyewitnesses of the life of the historical Jesus (John, Matthew). Mark and Luke do not make any such claim (Lk 1:1-4). Second the "vast majority" of New Testament scholars do not agree with the above statement. There are various schools of thought in New Testament scholarship and that is a view that many hold. However it is misleading to make it sound like the majority of scholars hold the above view when many scholars do not.

Rather, they are mid-late 1st century narrative collections of the accumulated traditions about Jesus' life, His sayings, etc., that emanated from sources that had once been eyewitnesses.

==Those dates are way too late for the Synoptic Gospels. While the Gospel of John maybe dated in the 80s, the Synoptics must be dated with in the late 50s to 60s. There are various reasons for this. For example we know that Luke and Acts were written by the same person (Luke) and that Acts was written after Luke. The book of Acts ends with Paul still alive but awaiting trail in Rome. Since we know that Paul was killed under Nero around AD66-68 the book of Acts must have been written before that date. Otherwise the ending of the book makes no sense.

If we accept the idea, as many scholars do, that Luke (for his Gospel) was dependent upon Mark, Q, and eyewitnesses then Mark must have been written before that date (AD66-68) as well. Matthew, being a Jewish Gospel, would also have been written before that date. That is just one reason I believe, as do many scholars, that the Synoptic Gospels were written in the late 50s to 60s. There are other reasons as well (see below).

Paul, for example, never met the earthly Christ. "Luke" never met the earthly Christ. "Mark" was not one of the apostles. Many of Paul's letters are quite blatantly regarded as being pseudonymous, etc.

==As for Paul's letters, most scholars admit that a certain number of those letters were written by Paul. There are some letters that are disputed by some scholars but it is not as in doubt as that statement makes it seem. Paul met the Apostles, he met the risen Lord Jesus, and he was a friend of Luke. Luke had access to written materials and eyewitnesses of the life of Christ. According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History) Mark was "the interpreter of Peter" and "wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ". Irenaeus tells us that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name while Peter and Paul were still alive, Eusebius tells us the same thing about Matthew. Back to dating for a second; this fact is another reason to place the Synoptic Gospels in the late 50s to 60s.

Does this detract from faith in the overall Gosepl truth? Only for the fundamentalist.

==Fundamentalists are those who hold to the fundamentals of Christianity (ie..the basic teachings). None of the above information detracts from the faith of educated Christians, why? Because we know that the Holy Spirit (the Helper) guided these men to write what Jesus did and said (Jn 15:26-27, 16:13).

The fundamentalist places his/her primary faith in pen-and-ink (a Bible) rather than in the actual Person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the realities of Biblical origin dash their faith.

==That is a highly misleading statement, if not an outright dishonest statement (depending upon the knowledge of the person who wrote it). Our faith is in Christ, Christ has given us His Word through the Holy Spirit and the writers of the New Testament (ex: Rev 1:1-2). The realities of Biblical origins do not dash my faith, why? Because the realities (which the article in the original post does not fairly represent) do not threaten faith. The above article is written from a hyper-critical point of view. The author has ignored quite a bit of historical (etc) evidence.

The fact is that several of the major New Testament scholars today are evangelicals (Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, etc). Others, while not evangelical, are still conservative scholars and defend the Biblical account of the historical Jesus (NT Wright, Bruce Metzger, Paul Barnett, etc). Even the more liberal scholars (Marcus Borg, John Crossan, Bart Ehrman, etc) will make alot of concessions to those conservative/evangelical scholars. That is a very important point.

The historical evidence is on the side of orthodox Christianity in this matter. Those who hold to a more liberal view (Jesus Seminar, etc) do so because of various philosophical presuppositions (no predictive prophecy, no eyewitness Gospel writers, Jesus was mainly a political figure, etc).

 

[mojoala]

Here is a rebuttal that he gave:

as I noted before: The bulk of the NT books & letters were *not* written by actual eyewitnesses to the earthly life of Jesus, i.e. the authors/editors/redactors were not on-hand with papyrus notepads and quills to "jot-down" His activities like Holy Reporters.

Just because Paul heard the "voice" of Jesus does not contradict the statement that he was *not* an actual eyewitness to the earthly existence/life-course/ministry of Jesus. I made the same point for Mark and Luke, not to simply state the obvious, but to drive home the point that these authors were *not* on-the-spot reporters. This alone tells us that the information they received (at the very least) was second-hand, i.e. passed-down tradition.

Moreover, it is simply the overwhelming majority opinion of the world's prominent Biblical scholars that the NT Gospel narratives were written decades after the ministry of Christ on earth had ended.

As for Mark, it is generally thought that his Gospel narrative emanated from a source that, originally, in some fashion, was perhaps connected with Peter and his reputed secretary, "Mark." I tend to believe this, but I believe that the book emerged from a church or clutch of churches that had preserved the Petrine-Marcan ideology just after the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70. The bit of authorship information was related to us by Papias, actually, *via* Eusebius--and Eusebius was quite clear that he did not consider Papias to be the most reliable source in the world.

All of the Gospels, according to the vast majority of reputable Biblical scholars, represent the accumulated stages of various Christian communities and their traditions stemming from the founders (or leading figures) of various early communities.

Even the ancients were not certain about authorship--the "titles" of the Gospels were tacked-on as "best-guesses" in the 2nd centuries according to THE TRADITION THAT PEOPLE LIKE PAPIAS HAD RECEIVED, PRIOR, FROM THE CHURCH.

Thus, the NT narrative of Mark does not in any place note: "My name is Mark, I was Peter's secretary, and I wrote this book!" Or, the NT narrative of Matthew does not in any place note: "I am Matthew, I was one of Jesus Christ's original, poor Aramaic-speaking disciples and here I am writing this lengthy, highly edited narrative in lovely koine Greek!"

There were no Bibles in the early churches. Christians did not have proof-texts or pages to riffle-through and didn't tote Bibles to their liturgies. Many of these books were not even considered to be authentic by vast portions of the early church, at any given time, until the canon was fixed by the authority of Catholic bishops and the Emperor (who had an interest in the matter). The concept of a "Bible" as we know it today DID NOT EXIST in early Christianity for several centuries.

Therefore, to claim that such a Bible is the only genesis or source of the Christian faith and belief is utter nonsense, much less to call it the sole and complete source of *all* things Christian. (I'm not saying that you are not rational--only that you ascribe to the old adage: "My mind is made up--don't confuse me with the facts!).

As for Paul's letters, some of them are certainly authentic, or rather, stem from authentic preservations of original leters that he actually wrote. Several are blatantly pseudonymous (which was indeed a common and accepted practice of the time in religious literature).

Do you have the original copies of the original texts written by the original authors? Until you do, you'll simply have to grit your teeth and trust the Catholic tradition (east and west), and thank that tradition for compiling, preserving, and ratifying the Bible to which you cling, and which we all cherish.

In the meantime, Christ the Person is the sole foundation of faith. I think you believe that. The community of believers, led by the Spirit, has preserved its reflection upon that truth in many ways--one of them is through the NT works, another is through liturgy, and sacrament. Another is through the Apostles Creed, another is through the extra-canonical writings of the early Fathers, another is through the continuous Christian oral tradition and the defining Councils. Etc. The point is that Early Christianity was all about "ETC." because there was no "Bible" as we now know it. The Church did not require one. The collection of NT Scriptures was one of the many "etceteras" of early Christian tradition to which believers looked for inspiration, edification, and teaching.

Sola Scriptura has never been tenable.

Peace, brother...

 

[John of Japan]

Wait a minute, what is this? The rebuttal he gave to what? Are you the guy himself? Or are you passing on what we say to some other forum? If either one of these things are true, I question your Internet ethics. If neither one of these things are true, tell us what is going on here.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The idea that the only credible New Testament scholars are those who reject the idea that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts and that at least most of the NT books were written by the authors therein claimed is slapstick comedy.

I contend that the Synoptics, Acts, and all of the epistles of Peter and Paul were written beforeAD65, and I challenge anyone to offer credible evidence to the contrary.

Further, I absolutely reject the use of "Q" or the Gospel of Thomas as a source for any of the canonical Gospels, and further dispute the very existence of a "Quelle" at all.

And this is comng from a liberal Christian (PCUSA), not a fundamentalist.

 

[Martin]

The bulk of the NT books & letters were *not* written by actual eyewitnesses to the earthly life of Jesus, i.e. the authors/editors/redactors were not on-hand with papyrus notepads and quills to "jot-down" His activities like Holy Reporters.

==I am really not sure what this means since I already dealt with this point in my reply. Are you just cutting and pasting what someone else is saying? Why not come up with your own questions/remarks? At least three NT writers were, mostly likely, eyewitnesses to the life of Christ (Matthew, John, Peter). Anyone who says they know, without a doubt, that none of the New Testament writers were eyewitnesses is going against known historical evidence, and is going beyond whatever arguments they may use to support their claim. It is a presupposition not a fact.

Just because Paul heard the "voice" of Jesus does not contradict the statement that he was *not* an actual eyewitness to the earthly existence/life-course/ministry of Jesus.

==Paul never claims to be an eyewitness to the earthly life of Christ. However he does have direct contact with those who were eyewitnesses (Gal 1:18-24, Acts 15:2-21, etc). Therefore his comments in 1Corinthians 11:23-26, and 15:3-8 are in agreement with the Gospels. While there are differences, showing neither copied from the other, they agree in what actually happened. Paul's statements in both 1Cor 11:23-26 and 15:3-8 provide early (around AD55) accounts of what happened the night of Jesus' death and after the resurrection. Paul probably got this information from Jesus Himself and from the Apostles in Jerusalem.

Moreover, it is simply the overwhelming majority opinion of the world's prominent Biblical scholars that the NT Gospel narratives were written decades after the ministry of Christ on earth had ended.

==That is false. I would like that person to prove the above statement to me. However they cannot because it is simply not the case. Maybe the "overwhelming majority" of scholars that person reads (etc) believes that, but it is not the case that " the overwhelming majority opinion of the world's prominent Biblical scholars that the NT Gospel narratives were written decades after the ministry of Christ". I can name more than a few scholars who strongly disagree with that statement.

As for Mark, it is generally thought that his Gospel narrative emanated from a source that, originally, in some fashion, was perhaps connected with Peter and his reputed secretary, "Mark."

==You can believe that "theory" or you can believe what early church historians said; Mark wrote what Peter taught (Eusebius, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexanderia). Eusebius also tells us that Peter "was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches". Eusebius even says that, "Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle". This means that Mark was written before Peter's death in the mid 60s and not "after the destruction of Jerusalem" in AD70.

I tend to believe this, but I believe that the book emerged from a church or clutch of churches that had preserved the Petrine-Marcan ideology just after the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70. The bit of authorship information was related to us by Papias, actually, *via* Eusebius--and Eusebius was quite clear that he did not consider Papias to be the most reliable source in the world.

==Eusebius mentioned that Clement of Alexandria said that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark from Peter's preaching. Irenaeus says the same thing. So it is not so simple to just dismiss this historical evidence. (see above)

All of the Gospels, according to the vast majority of reputable Biblical scholars, represent the accumulated stages of various Christian communities and their traditions stemming from the founders (or leading figures) of various early communities.

==That is false. Plain and simple, false.

Thus, the NT narrative of Mark does not in any place note: "My name is Mark, I was Peter's secretary, and I wrote this book!" Or, the NT narrative of Matthew does not in any place note: "I am Matthew, I was one of Jesus Christ's original, poor Aramaic-speaking disciples and here I am writing this lengthy, highly edited narrative in lovely koine Greek!"

==We have early historical data, from several sources, that indicate that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, etc, etc.

Many of these books were not even considered to be authentic by vast portions of the early church

==I could say alot about that statement but I will just simply ask for proof. Btw, I know this statement is also historically false.

Therefore, to claim that such a Bible is the only genesis or source of the Christian faith and belief is utter nonsense

==No, that is nonsense. Where are else are you going to go? The New Testament is the earliest Christian documents we have. And it is written by men who were eyewitnesses, or who had connections to eyewitnesses, to the life of the historical Jesus. It is also written by men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write Holy Scripture (2Tim 3:16-17).

As for Paul's letters, some of them are certainly authentic, or rather, stem from authentic preservations of original leters that he actually wrote. Several are blatantly pseudonymous (which was indeed a common and accepted practice of the time in religious literature).

==Which ones?

Do you have the original copies of the original texts written by the original authors? Until you do, you'll simply have to grit your teeth and trust the Catholic tradition (east and west), and thank that tradition for compiling, preserving, and ratifying the Bible to which you cling, and which we all cherish.

==False. We can look at the textual evidence. We are not dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church.

In the meantime, Christ the Person is the sole foundation of faith. I think you believe that.

==Apart from Scripture you don't know if the Jesus you have faith in is indeed the historical Jesus. In fact if you are discounting Scripture, the words of the Apostles (etc), then you probably do not have faith in the historical Jesus (who is Lord).

 

[Martin]

O,yes, btw. Please name these sources that you are quoting.

 

[genesis12]

Wow! I'm sure glad that Fundiefighter set everything straight! How could I have been so sadly misinformed all these years? BTW, Fundie, are your sources found anywhere in the Bible? Just thot I'd ask.

 

[mojoala]

The Catholic Church Determined the Canon of Scripture

Martin, I see you are quoting from the Early Church Fathers but you say: ==We have early historical data, from several sources, that indicate that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, etc, etc

But you say this as well: ==False. We can look at the textual evidence. We are not dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church.

So how do you reconcile these same historical data that claim the latter?

"For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all." The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).


"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (A.D. 212).

"In his [Origen] first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: 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." Origen, Commentary on Matthew, fragment in Eusebius Church History, 6:25,3 (A.D. 244).

"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

 

[mojoala]

The Catholic Church Determined the Canon of Scripture

"I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things [the canon], I shall adopt, to comment my undertaking, the pattern of Luke...to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon..." Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39 (A.D. 397).

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John." Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).

"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you." Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).
"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema." Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John." Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).

"Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis...The Revelation of John...for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in the church." Council of Carthage, African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419).

"The book of the Apocalypse which John the wise wrote, and which has been honoured by the approval of the Fathers." Cyril of Alexandria, Worship and Adoration in Spirit and in Truth, 5 (A.D. 425).

"Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426).

OR DO YOU ONLY CITE THE ECFs THAT FIT YOUR BELIEF AND DISREGARD ALL OTHERS?

 

[mojoala]

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

 

[Martin]

Martin, I see you are quoting from the Early Church Fathers but you say: ==We have early historical data, from several sources, that indicate that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, etc, etc

But you say this as well: ==False. We can look at the textual evidence. We are not dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church.

So how do you reconcile these same historical data that claim the latter?

==Are you claiming that these men were "ROMAN" Catholics? Or are you confusing the meaning of the term?

I see you fire off quotes from various early church teachers (etc).

What is your point?

Is all you do cut and paste?

You did not answer my question or points.

What in those quotes do you think disagrees with what I said?

I can't just look at a bunch of quotes and get your point. I cannot read minds mainly through the internet.

O, btw, my comments refer only to New Testament studies.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

The idea that the only credible New Testament scholars are those who reject the idea that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts and that at least most of the NT books were written by the authors therein claimed is slapstick comedy.

I contend that the Synoptics, Acts, and all of the epistles of Peter and Paul were written beforeAD65, and I challenge anyone to offer credible evidence to the contrary.

Further, I absolutely reject the use of "Q" or the Gospel of Thomas as a source for any of the canonical Gospels, and further dispute the very existence of a "Quelle" at all.

And this is comng from a liberal Christian (PCUSA), not a fundamentalist.

Wow, good to hear that you're not that liberal after all.

 

[John of Japan]

Majoala, so far you have not posted anything at all of your beliefs. All you have done is quote others. You have not really commented on your OP. So, what do you believe about your OP and this so-called "FundieFighter?" Do you agree or disagree?

Your public profile says you are an independent Baptist. If so (I'm not calling you a liar), you are running around in very strange company.