Did the RCC realy Give us the Bible And trinity?

[Yeshua1]

This is an important quote, from a Protestant source, which accurately describes the historical situation in which the acceptance of the Canon took place.

Folks seem to subconciously forget that there was no fax machines, printing presses, express mail back then, and that therefore the circulation of the different writings varied in time and space. Some were more frequently copied and more widely circulated at an earlier date (ie Paul's epistles), while some writings had a more limited area of circulation earlier on (the general epistles). This difference contributed to the early lack of consensus for the 'disputed writings', for at the same time these began to circulate out of the areas in which they were initially received, other spurious writings (claiming apostolic authorship but which promoted heresy) also began to be circulating. Thus local congregations, previously unfamiliar with the 'disputed (but ultimately canonical) writings, were naturally hesitant in accepting these since there were many other writings that were by this time falsely claiming apostolic authorship (Gospel of Thomas, et al) but were patient of gnosticism.

Again, even during the time of the Apostles, their writtings were being passed away and received as inspired books, on par wit the already established OT canon of books!

the books that became known as the Canon were pretty much being used and agreed upon by churches soon after the Apsotolic Age ended!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Again, even during the time of the Apostles, their writtings were being passed away and received as inspired books, on par wit the already established OT canon of books!

the books that became known as the Canon were pretty much being used and agreed upon by churches soon after the Apsotolic Age ended!

But the point of my post to which you responded is that all the different local congregations did NOT always at first agree on which writings were genuinely apostolic and which weren't. There were about 7 books which remained in dispute in various places until the late 4th/early 5th century.

Obviously, all 27 books that would eventually be in the final ratified Canon were inspired as soon as they were being written. However, it's also obvious from history that God was pleased to use the CHURCH* to recognize, and then finally define, the exact boundaries of the Canon over time. The implications of this is what is unsettling to many sectarian groups, I think. For if they accept the early undivided CHURCH's consensus on the boundaries of the Canon, on what basis do they in different ways reject the consensus of that same CHURCH where it exists in regards to the interpretation of that same Canon when it teaches about God, Christ, or salvation?

(*And I by CHURCH I don't meant the communion that is soley coextensive with either the RCC or EOC)

 

[Yeshua1]

But the point of my post to which you responded is that all the different local congregations did NOT always at first agree on which writings were genuinely apostolic and which weren't. There were about 7 books which remained in dispute in various places until the late 4th/early 5th century.

Obviously, all 27 books that would eventually be in the final ratified Canon were inspired as soon as they were being written. However, it's also obvious from history that God was pleased to use the CHURCH* to recognize, and then finally define, the exact boundaries of the Canon over time. The implications of this is what is unsettling to many sectarian groups, I think. For if they accept the early undivided CHURCH's consensus on the boundaries of the Canon, on what basis do they in different ways reject the consensus of that same CHURCH where it exists in regards to the interpretation of that same Canon when it teaches about God, Christ, or salvation?

(*And I by CHURCH I don't meant the communion that is soley coextensive with either the RCC or EOC)

Again, the Apostolic books were being circulated and used even during Apsotle lifetimes...

Were viewed as being JUST as inspired as the recognized OT canon of books...

ONLY a few books that went into the canon later on were diasputed, and those due to mainly questions on authorship. but still viewed as texts to read and study from!

just saying historical evidence does NOT support RCC suddenly giving the church the canon, it merely "ratified" those books already being recognised pretty much simce Apsotolic times as inspired texts!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Again, the Apostolic books were being circulated and used even during Apsotle lifetimes...

Again, these were circulated to varying degrees early on which is why some (particulary the Gospels and especially Paul's letters) were intially more widely accepted than others (most of the general epistles and Revelation) and why these latter were disputed in some places for up to a few centuries after they were written

Were viewed as being JUST as inspired as the recognized OT canon of books...

Again, this is true of the majority, but the inspiration of the disputed works were NOT universally recognized early on.

ONLY a few books that went into the canon later on were diasputed, and those due to mainly questions on authorship. but still viewed as texts to read and study from!

Right, which is basically what I've been saying. The disputed books met with skepticism in some places because their apostolic authorship was questioned, particularly because these were late in becoming more widely circulated, at the same time spurious heretical works also began to be circulated.

On the other hand, other works such as Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, and the Didache were read and studied from and respected by many congregations of the Church as well, and these did NOT ultimately make it into the CANON (but they still were considered to be generally orthodox, as the first two of these were attached to the end of Codex Sinaiticus, and the third to Codex Alexandrinus)

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, these were circulated to varying degrees early on which is why some (particulary the Gospels and especially Paul's letters) were intially more widely accepted than others (most of the general epistles and Revelation) and why these latter were disputed in some places for up to a few centuries after they were written


Again, this is true of the majority, but the inspiration of the disputed works were NOT universally recognized early on.



Right, which is basically what I've been saying. The disputed books met with skepticism in some places because their apostolic authorship was questioned, particularly because these were late in becoming more widely circulated, at the same time spurious heretical works also began to be circulated.

On the other hand, other works such as Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, and the Didache were read and studied from and respected by many congregations of the Church as well, and these did NOT ultimately make it into the CANON (but they still were considered to be generally orthodox, as the first two of these were attached to the end of Codex Sinaiticus, and the third to Codex Alexandrinus)

key point is again, the RCC did not produce/give us the Bible!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

key point is again, the RCC did not produce/give us the Bible!

Which strictly speaking is NOT what I'm arguing for. I am arguing that God used His CHURCH to recognize/ratify the exact boundaries of the Canon over time--a 27 book 'Table of Contents' didn't just fall out of the sky on Pentecost Sunday--and all Christians today have the exact 27 book New Testament they have in their Bibles because of this Spirit guided 'ratification' by the Church in the late 4th/early 5th centuries.

 

[The Biblicist]

Which strictly speaking is NOT what I'm arguing for. I am arguing that God used His CHURCH to recognize/ratify the exact boundaries of the Canon over time--a 27 book 'Table of Contents' didn't just fall out of the sky on Pentecost Sunday--and all Christians today have the exact 27 book New Testament they have in their Bibles because of this Spirit guided 'ratification' by the Church in the late 4th/early 5th centuries.

You are simply historically wrong. No "content" page was necessary as the Apostle John lived for at least 40 years after all other New Testament books were already written and accepted among the churches under his supervision as the last living apostle.

Tertullian does not say "PART of the volume" of New Testament "scriptures" were received "from the beginning" but "the WHOLE volume" was received from the beginning and only heretics ADD or subtract from that "WHOLE volume."

Isaiah 8:16-18 predicts the completion of the scriptures under the direction of Jesus Christ and his apostles and Christ acknolwedged that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into "all truth" bringing back to the memory his words as well as future things AND ONLY THE APOSTLES could be the subject of this promise as they HEARD the words of Jesus Christ. John acknowledges that the book of Revelation is the capstone of Biblical scriptures by using the same precise term to describe his final book as Isaiah used for the New Testament scritpures in their completion "the testimony" of Jesus Christ. John finalized his book that takes the reader historically from his own day to the new heaven and earth with a "seal" just as Isaiah predicted and there is no other "seal" of scriptures between the day of Isaiah and John. John finalized the New testament revelation by making the same prediction as Isaiah in saying that after the law (OT scriptures) and the testimony (NT scriptures) had been finished the only revelation from heaven after that is the coming of the Lord from Glory (Isa. 8:17; Rev. 22:19-20).

 

[Doubting Thomas]

You are simply historically wrong. No "content" page was necessary as the Apostle John lived for at least 40 years after all other New Testament books were already written and accepted among the churches under his supervision as the last living apostle.

Tertullian does not say "PART of the volume" of New Testament "scriptures" were received "from the beginning" but "the WHOLE volume" was received from the beginning and only heretics ADD or subtract from that "WHOLE volume."

But as I said in an earlier post, you can't assume that Tertullian had the exact 27 book NT canon (that we have) in mind when he said 'whole volume' without resorting to anachronism and circular reasoning, as there is NO LIST before AD 367 that gives our exact 27 book NT (no more, no less). Thsi is true even in ORTHODOX circles as there were disagrements in various local orthodox congregations, based on the actual evidence we have, about the exact boundaries of the canon (let alone among the heretics). You are the one who is historically wrong, unless you can give positive explicit evidence that Tertullian had all 27 (and only those 27 books) in mind in those instances he spoke of 'the whole volume'. You may want to start by showing these quotes in context, and then proceed to show me where Tertullian enumerates the contents of this 'whole volume'.

 

[The Biblicist]

But as I said in an earlier post, you can't assume that Tertullian had the exact 27 book NT canon (that we have) in mind when he said 'whole volume' without resorting to anachronism and circular reasoning, as there is NO LIST before AD 367 that gives our exact 27 book NT (no more, no less).

As I said no content page was necessary because all 27 books HAD been written and HAD been received by APOSTOLIC CHURCHES before John died and you have to make the oxymoronic argument that some had not yet been written and received by the APOSTOLIC CHURCHES to repudiate my argument.

They had received all 27 because Tertullian claimed that only the heretics ADDED to this "whole volume" which they received "FROM THE BEGINNING."

His statement is simple and COMPREHENSIVE and denies additions of books to the "whole volume" and he wrote this about 100 years after the apostolic period.

Furthermore, you can do nothing with the internal witness that Jesus clearly and explicitly predicted in keeping with Old Testament prophecies (Isa. 8:16-18 with Revelation 1:3; 22:17-20) that the Spirit would lead the apostles into "ALL TRUTH" and bring back to their memory the words he had spoken to them as well as additional words which the apostles understood to be perpetuated in their writings as scripture as opposed to ORAL WITNESS - 2 Pet. 1:15-21 ("more sure").

 

[Doubting Thomas]

As I said no content page was necessary because all 27 books HAD been written and HAD been received by APOSTOLIC CHURCHES before John died and you have to make the oxymoronic argument that some had not yet been written and received by the APOSTOLIC CHURCHES to repudiate my argument.

I NEVER said some were not written--you are not paying attention to what I am writing and are putting words in my mouth!
While all 27 had indeed been written YOU HAVE NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that ALL had been UNIVERSALLY RECEIVED by EVERY Apostolic congregation, because you've yet to produce ANY authoritative list from ANY congregation from this time period listing exactly out same 27 books we have today, let alone that such a list was considered to be UNIVERSALLY authoritative. You continue to resort to anachronism and circular reasoning, because YOU HAVE NO HISTORICAL CASE FOR YOUR POSITION!

They had received all 27 because Tertullian claimed that only the heretics ADDED to this "whole volume" which they received "FROM THE BEGINNING."

AGAIN, you have YET to PRODUCE the list of the contents of what Tertullian (OR ANYONE ELSE) considered to be in this whole volume.

His statement is simple and COMPREHENSIVE and denies additions of books to the "whole volume" and he wrote this about 100 years after the apostolic period.

THIS DOES NOT PROVE he had the SAME 27 BOOKS in mind that we do today, regardless of how long after the apostolic period he wrote this.

You ASSUME that he must have had our 27 books in mind, but you have provided no documentation for this--only CIRCULAR REASONING based on an anachronism. The first list from orthodox circles is from this same time period (Muratorian Canon) and it leaves out Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and only mentions TWO epistles of John. You thus incorrectly assume that since 27 books were all written, then they must have also all be equally circulated (to the same geographical extent) at the same early date and thus equally accepted by the universal church at the beginning of the 3rd century. You have no prove of this other than speculation and circular reasoning.