Hi, it's me again.
How are you all, I hope you are doing fine.
I got a question that puzzled me for a while. On what bases were the NT books chosen? I know church came before Bible. Faith - or Faiths honestly - was not based on God's word, God's word was chosen to confirm the winning faith then?
I wish I were wrong, I asked historians and made my research; but I can't help but to see this.
So I wish if anyone can tell me what happened then? Why also Gospels writers are anonymous historically? Why also some of Paul's epistles might not be attributed to him? Weren't church fathers interested in authorship of these books?
Sorry for my bad English.
Also can anyone recommend an Abouna in Cairo - Shubra preferably - so that I can ask him?
Thanks!
Comments
- The NT Canon have books that were written between 45-100 AD, the earliest is St. Mark's Gospel, the latest was Revelation.
I'm happy to hear from you, and thanks for the warm welcome.
So the church knew which books were inspired before making them canonical? Why then did they wait so long? I guess some books were always disputed and it was settled afterwards like the book of revelations for example. If they confirmed their authorship why are they termed anonymous writings? If it indeed happen why does the evidence say otherwise per your saying?
Did the earliest translations include all the books we have today? There are even translation of "apocryphal" NT books, like the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Saint Athanasius condemned their writings in his Festal letter in 367 as non-canonI called.
What books were used by the early church?
- What's the problem with being apocalyptic, if it's scripture then it is scripture, why shouldn't the church canonise it? Also, why epistles of Church fathers should be put as scripture? Well, for me, if they're not apostolic then that breaks it.
- They're anonymous because they were not signed, they vary within themselves, they show signs of redactions too. Yepp, current studies use writing style to give hints about the claim of authorship, how can one's writing style vary during one book in one theme?
Thanks for being patient with me.
Also something that is not quite making sense to me you always say that the holy ghost is working in the church, how can one be so sure of this?
How can one be so sure that the holy ghost is the one who assembled the canon?
- That was a reference to what i wrote in the first comment in this discussion.
- As for the 'holy ghost'...that is the Holy Spirit (ghost is just an older english word that was used....but spirit is accepted now by almost all. In arabic its "الروح القدس"...the third hypostasis of the Trinity, the one God Christians believe in. Without getting into the understanding of the Trinity (that's a whole separate topic), we believe that we have the Bible because of the divine Inspiration. The closest arabic word to that is "الوحي"...But it is not understood in the same way as in Islam. The Inspiration is:
How can I find a church whereas I'm so Agnostic?
Pray for me!
I mentioned Agnostic because there's no church that will allow me to attend services and have discussions with me in Egypt.
Which Orthodox Church? Evangelical, Eastern, Oriental? I know I'm on a Coptic site, I hope you get the point of my rhetorical question.
We are lead to Jesus Christ as our Saviour and in combination with the Father we seek to inherit eternal life.
Jesus started the church and showed the Apostles the symbolic meanings of what they were going to do, however, it wasn't until pentacost that the Holy Spirit gave them guidance that they could proceed with the mission of salvation through Christ Jesus.
The gospels are a means of salvation and in them the church has understood those means.
The most significant account for Christianity is the resurrection without which there would only be just wisdom on how to live life.
As for the writers of the gospels. Authorship can be either the person wrote it directly or a person dictated it or a person had a ghost writer all are attributed to the writer. It may also ex plain changes if there are any to writing style. What is most important is the message.
God wants us to return to Him which He had chosen to do for us and that we have been led astray by whatever means.
There is joy and freedom in salvation and I pray you seek it earnestly Raafat.
God bless you.
I'd like to make a small comment and that is that the Holy Spirit does what is good and for Christianity it is for our salvation.
We are lead to Jesus Christ as our Saviour and in combination with the Father we seek to inherit eternal life.
Jesus started the church and showed the Apostles the symbolic meanings of what they were going to do, however, it wasn't until pentacost that the Holy Spirit gave them guidance that they could proceed with the mission of salvation through Christ Jesus.
The gospels are a means of salvation and in them the church has understood those means.
[quote]
The most significant account for Christianity is the resurrection without which there would only be just wisdom on how to live life.
As for the writers of the gospels. Authorship can be either the person wrote it directly or a person dictated it or a person had a ghost writer all are attributed to the writer. It may also ex plain changes if there are any to writing style. What is most important is the message.[/quote]
What do you mean by a ghost writer all are attributed to writer?
The message is quite grand to be fair, although there some things which raise a few questions.
God wants us to return to Him which He had chosen to do for us and that we have been led astray by whatever means.
There is joy and freedom in salvation and I pray you seek it earnestly Raafat.
God bless you.
[/quote]
But before i begin to believe I want to see for myself and get convinced. I'm more like Thomas.
See for yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Orthodox_Church
No they're not part of Eastern Rite Orthodoxy. They're as I understand the Orthodox equivalent of Anglicanism.
Returning to theoriginal goal of the post:
Why one should trust that the NT has all the right books in it? Isn't there any posiibility that a book is added here or thrown there?
They weren't so sure of many writing like 3 of Paul's letters, 2 Peter, Revelations and Epistle of John I guess.
Why would they include Hebrews if they didn't know who the writer was? It is not us now doubting the writer, it is the church from the beginning didn't know who the writer was.
Also what constitutes an Apostle anyway? Why Luke and Mark are not just disciples of the apostles but rather full-fledged apostles?
When an apostle is basically one of the Seventy (72 actually) and the Twelve. Another title for the twelve are the Disciples. Some say that the 70 are Disciples, but in the Orthodox Church we make that distinction. Sts. Matthew and John were of the Twelve, Sts. Mark and Luke were of the Seventy
So, hypothetically speaking, if an epistle is found and is traced back to an Apostle or Disciple, what would happen then? Will the Canon get bigger?
The interpretations of any one book should be Dynamic and seen through the lens of our time, of course the problem with Protestantism is not the interpretation only.
But if scripture defined orthodoxy and orthodoxy defined scripture doesn't this lead to some kind of loop? With a great margin of error?
So to put my trust in the sources I've to become a member of the Christian faith? I can't trust them before I subscribe to any particular faith?
Yes the Church Fathers were consistent "most of the time" on "most of the Canon" but It makes me wonder why not "all the time" and "all of the Canon". It makes me wonder how much of it is purely human intervention, in identifying and accepting which scripture that is.
As why I'm investigating Christianity, I come from a religious background and in a religious community so it feels weird not to have any. And there's something telling me that I should give them a shot, it might be that I'm friends with so many Coptic Christians and in Egypt any religion other than Islam, Christianity and Judaism is not even a religion in the true sense.
May be there's an inner calling which is not dependent on any of those factors that tells me to do it. But that's rather weird and unlikely. And in accordance with the inner call, whatever its origin was, I'm investigating Christianity.
I'm not so sure why.
If you were with a group of people and you were all asked to talk about an experience you all shared. What you experienced in your veiw might be slightly different from the others. A ghost writer could write down your experience the way you recalled faithfully (without dictated it word for word) and you would say to them yes that's exactly the way I recalled it.
We have to remember back at that time there was a very strong oral tradition especially with the Jews as you werent allowed to bear false witness.
I'm not sure what scripture is inconsistent or canon. We can debate them.
Funny thing is that when I first started reading your post and I thought you were like Thomas.
Another coincidence was when I was thinking about explaining to you that we imitate Christ and I was thinking what to say when I opened a Coptic app called Kenonia to read it's message for the day when it had exactly what I wanted to say to you explaining the truth because it is in your heart.
When I first came to the church this type of thing happened too many times to mention. I knew the Holy Spirit was guiding me and I wish to thank you Raafat for reconnecting me again with God at that time. Like you I also searched for the truth. I found it in Christ because He is a living God, one that does work on the hearts of men; one that He shows the way; and one that continually gives me self-reflection to be humble, of which I'm struggling with at the moment but I've been there and want to return to that state. I'm not even happy with the way I talk here even because it should not be about me but for the Glory of God which is to put Him first in everything.
I again pray God grants you brotherhood with us one day that you find His love and compassion. It is simple and complex at the same time. Even if you acknowledge what the church says even if you don't agree I'm sure it will come back to you for the wisdom comes from love for us His creation. God bless.
yes, keep looking, don't give up.
it is good to ask questions
:)
The entire reason we are called Orthodox is because we follow the traditions handed down from the apostles, who were given it by Jesus Christ. The apostles (and disciples) we're quoting each other before there was an agreement as to what the New Testament was- that wasn't until St. Athanasius. St Peter was saying that St Paul's words were scripture before the rest of the NT was even finished.
Another big part of this is the oral tradition, as was already mentioned. Not even John the Beloved, the final writer of the NT, had a copy of any book of the NT not written by him. But how then did the account of Christ spread if it wasn't written? The same way literature like Homer's Iliad was spread and recorded- it was spread orally until they decided to write it down.
Finally, about adding books to the Bible- it probably won't happen. We have no holes in our faith, no theological or historical gaps, that require a book to fill them. Now what if, for example, we found more writings regarding the ministry of Jesus? We know that there are things He did that aren't written down- John the Beloved says that "not all the books in the world" could contain Jesus' works if they were written down. All they would do is reinforce the accounts we already have. And if we find a 'credible' record of something that blatantly contradicts what we already have, we have numerous sources agreeing with each other versus one that doesn't.
Yes if I remember something and someone wrote on my behalf with me dictating it or not, then yes I'd approve of it. The thing is, who is this writer and how can he be so sure that he is not an impostor? What makes us so sure than an Apostle or a Disciple approved of it?
The oral tradition was very strong their, but it is faulty. We're then left to the individual honesty and sure there will be someone who will lie for whatever reason there is.
The inconsistencies in the scripture is for another thread not here, so we are all focused.
Some friend of mine called me Thomas, he's the one who pointed it to me.
The truth is in my heart? My heart is really garbled and I'm not sure of anything, unless of course Agnosticism is the truth