|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Two approaches to Theology
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Two approaches to TheologyI don't mean Christian vs Muslim vs, Judaism, etc. I mean entire approaches to the subject, 'Biblical Theology' This is an approach that takes the text and tries to work through what it means, as it speaks in its own context. A typical example of this is exegeting a parable of Jesus, etc. It was largely the traditional Jewish way of unwrapping the Scriptures in Jesus' time, and there are many examples of the New Testament writers such as Paul and James doing it. At heart, it assumes that the writer knew what he was writing, using his own words as he drew on his own experiences and insight. The question of 'Inspiration' in these circumstances is not WHETHER the writer was 'inspired', but HOW. Was it some form of 'Divine Dictation' or was it that God had so guided his life, experiences and thinking so that he 'freewillingly' came to the required conclusion? In 'Biblical Theology', that question doesn't carry any weight because we are dealing with the text as it is, however the writer arrived at it. It is assumed to be 'inspired' by whatever method it happened, and we work from that point forwards, not backwards. 'Systematic Theology' But this traditional Jewish approach was foreign to the Greek culture that the early Church had to face. Greek philosophy was more focused on the general Order of the Cosmos, the Big Picture. Greek thinking saw individual experiences and observations as data, to be welded into a comprehensive, rational whole. The early Church thinkers adapted to this way of thinking in their efforts to explain their faith to the intelligentsia of their day. Thus began 'Systematic Theology'. This concerned itself with questions that the Bible writers themselves assumed but rarely discussed except in the broadest terms. For example, the New Testament talks about Jesus as 'Lord', a title usually applied to God, and attributed to him various characteristics and abilities of God. But they also spoke of him as a man, needing food, water and rest, and who died. How can the one person have this combination of qualities? The New Testament doesn't even consider that question, but simply accepts these as facts in tension. Greeks could not do that, so there had to be a formal doctrine of 'Trinity' established, explained and defined. You will see from this that 'Biblical' Theology is where the data is, and which should have priority. 'Systematic' Theology is derivative from this. Systematic Theology is itself not 'inspired'; it is just scholars trying to explain the texts that are inspired. This continued through Church History, as the influence of Greek thought continued to replace the old 'Biblical Theology' approach. Doctrines and dogma were defined and propagated as though 'Truth', while the Biblical data was re-interpreted to lend support to this 'Truth'. Thus the priority was shifted from the Biblical data to the Systematic Theologians. I recall reading one passage from Scholastic Theology in the High Middle Ages which proved that God consisted of 'Existence' and nothing else. This was because God could not possibly have two qualities; if that were so, it would mean that those qualities were logically prior to God himself, who would not exist until those two qualities came together! Thus the simple Biblical statement “God is Love" was cancelled. This is why I say that doctrinal statements are metaphorical. They are not 'Truth', but only the attempts by mere humans to systematise the insights and struggles of Godly men as they pondered life and were guided by the God who is Truth. If used wisely, and by people who are aware of their limitations, these doctrines can be helpful. But if used woodenly, by people who don't discern their limitations, they can become dead ends. The 'Devotio Moderna' and then the Reformation reacted against this dogmatism, seeking a personal, intimate piety. But it soon got bogged down in a race to write Creeds and Confessions and alternative doctrines. Actual examination of the texts in their own voice was often twisted to partisan ends. This is why the Historical-Critical Method that has come to dominance over the last two centuries is a return to genuine Biblical Theology. The growth of inter-denominational respect has helped this process. |
||||||
|
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13) “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” (John 15:26) You falsely accused me a few days ago of treating the Bible like an instruction book to some appliance, but that’s what you’re doing. Your post and understanding of the Scriptures is entirely carnal and self-focused and negates the work of God’s Holy Spirit. I suppose that’s fine for Christ deniers who don’t have God’s Holy Spirit indwelling them, but you shouldn’t try to fob that approach off on Christians. |
||||||
|
Vic 16:54 Don't you see the irony in your question? You immediately want a 'doctrinal' answer! Quite apart from completely missing the point when you say my advocacy of good exegesis "negates the work of God’s Holy Spirit". In fact, it emphasises the work of God's Spirit working through the original writers, while the 'doctrinal' approach that you prefer focusses on the work of later Greek-speaking theologians instead. Which is the more 'carnal'? "There are none so blind...". Peace, Vic. Read my post again, but this time think about it instead of looking for reasons to object. Oh, in case you come back saying that I didn't answer your question... My answer is there, in "It emphasises the work of God's Spirit working through the original writers, while the 'doctrinal' approach that you prefer focusses on the work of later Greek-speaking theologians instead." The Spirit also works in those humble enough to hear what the original writer was saying in his own time, in his own voice, to his own audience. Readers conscious of this and in fellowship and dialogue with the rest of the Body (instead of listening to their own private 'inner voice' which they mistake for the Spirit) will also be guided. Remember that those verses you quoted from John use the plural 'you', not the singular. |
||||||
|
The fact you don’t seem to know this is yet another example of how out of your depth you are in discussing the Bible and that’s imo due to your arrogance and carnal approach to the Scriptures. And the fact you would use something as sacred and holy as God’s Holy Spirit to troll me shows (yet again) how carnal and frankly repulsive you are. Sorry to be blunt. |
||||||
|
(Romans 8:9) <<What does Romans 8:9 mean? Paul has been describing the difference between those who live by their own self-reliant, selfish, sinful "flesh" and those who live by the Spirit of God. Paul's description leaves no room for anyone to both live by the flesh and live by Spirit. Christians live by the Spirit, even if we are sometimes distracted by sin. A true believer in Christ can sin (1 John 1:9–10), but sin is not the normal pattern of behavior for someone who is in Christ (1 John 3:4–6). Non-Christians live by the flesh, serving themselves. Now Paul makes it clear to his readers, Christians living in Rome, that he understands them to be in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Paul identifies them as Christians, with a stipulation: this is true "if" the Spirit of God lives in you. In modern English, we tend to assume that the word "if" implies doubt, when sometimes it simply connects two ideas. This phrase might be better read as a condition which is assumed to be true. In other words, "You are in the Spirit since the Spirit of God dwells in you." The reverse is also true: If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he or she does not belong to Christ. Paul leaves no room for Christians who do not have God's Spirit with them. God gives His Holy Spirit to every Christian. Without the Spirit, we are not Christians (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:14). Notice that this verse very much supports the idea of the Trinity. God is three persons in one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Spirit here is referred to both as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, though it is the same being. In addition, the Spirit of God is said to live in Christians in this verse and Christ is said to be "in you" in the following verse. This corresponds to the idea of three different persons in one Godhead.>> www.bibleref.com. Someone receives the Holy Spirit when he or she believes in Jesus Christ – that He is the Messiah who died for all of their sins (past, present and future) on a cross and was Resurrected three days later. “That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:12-14) You really ought to know this, Bob. |
||||||
|
Vic 18:05 & 18:17 <Bob, God’s Holy Spirit indwells every Christian. That’s Christianity 101.> Yes. Where did I say otherwise? <The fact you don’t seem to know this> and <the fact you would use something as sacred and holy as God’s Holy Spirit to troll me> So your erroneous assessments now have the status of 'facts'? Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by MY 'arrogance' a bit more clearly. <carnal approach to the Scriptures.> I quote from my 17:36 post. (I know you said you only skim my posts instead of reading and attempting to understand them, but that doesn't seem to slow you down!) "In fact, it (Biblical Theology) emphasises the work of God's Spirit working through the original writers, while the 'doctrinal' approach that you prefer focusses on the work of later Greek-speaking theologians instead. Which is the more 'carnal'?" So; which approach is more 'carnal'? Which of us is putting priority on the text, and which is putting more emphasis on man-made dogma? 18:17 I sincerely commend you on your approach to Rom. 8:9! You start by asking "What does this mean?" and answering that in the context of the gathering at Rome. Excellent! That's the 'exegesis' part, and you got it right. You then move on to ask "What can we, who are not members of that gathering, learn from what Paul says?" Again, excellent! You move from specific case to the general principle! The third step is to move from the general principle to a codified 'teaching'. This is what 'doctrine' means. You did this as well! So you DO understand the basic principles of good exegesis! The fourth step is where most problems occur. This is the application of the doctrine to new specifics. It requires discernment to see to what extent the conditions assumed in the 'general principles' step are satisfied in the new case being considered. <Notice that this verse very much supports the idea of the Trinity.> This is the core difference between an approach that puts the Bible text first ('Biblical Theology') or the Doctrine first ('Systematic Theology', which relegates the Inspired Word to the status of 'Supporting Actor'). Ask yourself; does this verse clearly TEACH the Trinity? No, it doesn't. It only points out that 'the spirit of God' and 'the spirit of Christ' are linked, and possibly/probably identical. That's a long way from the Athanasian Creed! But does the doctrine of the Trinity help explain how God operates? Yes it does. That's why later theologians promulgated it, even though Scripture does NOT clearly teach it. As I said earlier, it is one of those matters where the New Testament writers accepted apparent misfits as 'truths in tension'. Their priority was on how God operates, and the doctrine (a supporting paradigm to make it more understandable) was left for later generations to work out. <You really ought to know this, Bob.> Yes, I do. I can even explain it to you, as I just did. Why would you think I don't know this? |
||||||
|
This is another example of your still not getting it… <<I quote from my 17:36 post. (I know you said you only skim my posts instead of reading and attempting to understand them, but that doesn't seem to slow you down!) "In fact, it (Biblical Theology) emphasises the work of God's Spirit working through the original writers, while the 'doctrinal' approach that you prefer focusses on the work of later Greek-speaking theologians instead. Which is the more 'carnal'?">> Bob - God’s Holy Spirit works through individual Christians **alive today.** Why do you not seem to get this? You appear to think the only options are God’s Holy Spirit working through authors of the Bible or Greek-speaking theologians. <<So; which approach is more 'carnal'? Which of us is putting priority on the text, and which is putting more emphasis on man-made dogma?>> Your approach is carnal because it negates the work of God’s Holy Spirit working through individual Christians **alive today** who are reading the Bible **today** and whom the Holy Spirit indwells and guides **today.** Not 2,000 years ago. Not centuries ago. Today. I think the best thing you could do is to pack all your books on theology in a box, sit in stillness and sincerely ask God to guide you into the truth, to reveal the truth to you. I’d do this every day before reading the Bible, preferably the New Testament in which the Gospel and God are most clearly presented. What have you got to lose? |
||||||
|
Vic 19:59 <You appear to think the only options are God’s Holy Spirit working through authors of the Bible or Greek-speaking theologians.> Wrong on two counts! 1. It is the 'doctrinal' approach that relies on Greek-speaking theologians, IN CONTRAST TO the original authors and.... 2. (from my 17:36 post) "The Spirit also works in those humble enough to hear what the original writer was saying in his own time, in his own voice, to his own audience. Readers conscious of this and in fellowship and dialogue with the rest of the Body (instead of listening to their own private 'inner voice' which they mistake for the Spirit) will also be guided." Vic, why do you feel compelled to pick fault with everything I say? AND misquote me so as to create a fault that you can impute to me? AND even pick fault with what I DON'T say? AND pass over anything I say that you agree with, but don't want to admit it? And ignore any questions you can't answer? And challenge me to defend a position I have not stated? You accuse me of looking for a quarrel, but I see you doing that with a broadaxe. <Your approach is carnal because it negates the work of God’s Holy Spirit working through individual Christians **alive today** who are reading the Bible **today** and whom the Holy Spirit indwells and guides **today.*> Did you miss that bit in my 17:36 post that said "The Spirit also works in those humble enough to hear what the original writer was saying in his own time, in his own voice, to his own audience. Readers conscious of this and in fellowship and dialogue with the rest of the Body (instead of listening to their own private 'inner voice' which they mistake for the Spirit) will also be guided." That sure sounds like at least some of them might still be breathing! Meanwhile, you go along with the 'doctrinal' approach, created by people from centuries ago, in a different culture and confronting different problems. I would have thought the dead are more plentiful in that cohort than any other! By-the-way, if you don't want to heed people who are long dead, then why do you read the Bible? Every one of those authors has since been snatched up to Glory. And if you say you don't rely on the Bible, but the Spirit, then why can't the Spirit speak to you through a good novel? Vic, you are a mass of self-contradictions, and you are blind to all of them! Please, get yourself into a course than will teach you how to think in a more disciplined manner. Or is disciplined thinking too 'carnal'? Meanwhile, how about answering my questions? And I don't ask questions out of the blue in an attempt to entrap you, but I mean only those questions which spring directly from your own words:- 1. {<Bob, God’s Holy Spirit indwells every Christian. That’s Christianity 101.> Yes. Where did I say otherwise?} 2. {"In fact, it (Biblical Theology) emphasises the work of God's Spirit working through the original writers, while the 'doctrinal' approach that you prefer focusses on the work of later Greek-speaking theologians instead. Which is the more 'carnal'?"} No rush. Take a day or two to think things through. |
||||||
|
When you post something I disagree with, I’ll say why. But getting dragged down into your morass of ever-shifting and ever-changing meanings of what you said and your dishonest spin and self-promotion holds no interest for me. The last thing I’ll say is the Bible is inspired, that is, the Bible was written by men under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit, and God’s Holy Spirit indwelling believers connects to the inspired Word of God. Novels are obviously not on the same level as the Bible. It’s frankly stunning you have to be told this. I think it’d benefit you greatly to meditate on this passage from 1 Corinthians after asking God to help you understand it… “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” (1 Corinthians 2:9-15) I sincerely hope you come to a saving knowledge and belief in Jesus Christ one day soon and I will pray that you do. But your carnality and arrogance are a hindrance and negative influence on my walk with Christ and I’m not putting up with them any longer. I’ll post rebuttals to what you post if I disagree with what you post, but as far as having a “dialogue” with you, forget it. |
||||||
|
Vic 21:53 That just about sums it up, eh? You are the 'spiritual one', judge of all and judged by none. By-the-way, remind me; which of us is the arrogant one? No need to answer that question either, just like there's no need for you to answer any others. Spiritual guys ask the questions, they don't answer them. |
||||||
|
Sorry Vic My concerns about too many writings in the new Testament of the Bible, although likely an accurate message form God that the ancients would have limited understanding of, is that the writers held on to the messages for as long as a century or more which gave them plenty of time to manipulate the messages to fit their beliefs and fancy (there's ample evidence of that, huh?). Historic non-bible evidence about the actions of Jesus is scant --- The shroud of Turin is probably a fake, and the many, many, pieces of wood that are cherished as part of the cross he died on seem to be little more than a piece of wood that may/may not be a piece of wood that was used for one of a 100,000 or so crucifixions The matter of Jesus being singled-out because he suffered a horrible death on the cross for seems to be so centered on just one of many, many men makes this critical Christian event highly suspicious and almost laughable for the way it ignores the suffering of the many who were crucified before and after him. And it's odd to me how the Catholic church and probably other churches seem to be not disclosing the content many ancient scriptures. And Jesus isn't the only person who has been argued to have risen www.history.com Bottom line: I take the Bible as an assembly of beautiful messages, stories and rules that would be folly to assume that it's all indisputably true gospel. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 23-Apr-25, 12:00 |
|
||||||
|
@mo and dmaestro Mike, a believer receives the full indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit when he or she believes in Jesus Christ. According to the Bible. |
||||||
|
Mo 8:39 As for the Shroud and the True Cross, etc:- Religions since we wandered out of Africa have had sacred items. They serve several purposes. Perhaps to be used in ritual, which is psychologically a re-enactment and thus a confirmation of an event or process; perhaps as a memorial tool for particularly powerful or significant people or events; perhaps as a focus for prayer or invocation, as icons serve Orthodox churches today. They are all useful purposes, whether 'true' or not. These fell into disrepute in the Middle Ages in Europe because too many were 'discovered' or brought back from the Crusades purely as revenue raisers; merchandising in its earliest form. The Reformers thus became iconoclasts, destroying the helpful and the fraudulent alike. I don't know what you mean by "the writers held on to the messages for as long as a century or more which gave them plenty of time to manipulate the messages to fit their beliefs and fancy". There is every evidence that the first generation or two (say, up to A.D.70) expected the Return of Jesus within the lifetime of some of the Disciples who were still among them. Therefore they had no need of written records; but even so, in the meantime some books (such as the hypothesised 'Q', a collection of the Sayings of Jesus) were in wide circulation because even Paul quotes some apparent well-know aphorisms to his Greek converts. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the realisation that history might go on longer than expected, the Gospels and Acts were written while some original witnesses were still alive, precisely to AVOID drift in beliefs. The letters were a different story. These were written before the Gospels, being triggered by specific circumstances in specific places from time to time. Vic's comments on this point are quite accurate. As for "the Catholic church and probably other churches seem to be not disclosing the content many ancient scriptures", this point eludes me too. There are any number of writings freely available that are not accepted as Orthodox Scriptures. Many of them purport to be Gospels by different names, although the more famous are Gnostic works from the third of fourth century. As for ones that are still secret, if any; who would know if they even exist, if they are secret? |
||||||
|
And disciples back then were more concerned with establishing churches and spreading the Gospel on missionary trips than they were in writing, which was a laborious way of communicating due to the lack of a printing press, which wouldn’t be invented until 1,000+ years later. |
||||||
|
Vic 15:43 Certainly Luke-Acts was NOT written a century after the crucifixion. This is obvious from the 'we' passages in Acts, where the narrative of some of Paul's missionary work lapses unconsciously into the second person plural rather than third person, showing the author accompanied Paul on his journeys. I'm not convinced of a 60's date, but it is a reasonable position to take. Whenever it was written, Luke was keen to paint the Church in a favourable light in the eyes of the Roman authorities. His account of the early leadership of the Church immediately after Pentecost shows it to be very much after the pattern of the Roman Senate; wise men debating, but taking their lead from the Leader just as the first-century Senate still affected the trappings of being government while the real power was with the Emperor. He also tells how first Peter (centurion in ch. 10) then Paul were sympathetically treated by high Roman officials (the proconsul of Cyprus, ch. 13, the Athenian intelligensia in ch. 17, proconsul Gallio in Corith, the Asiarchs and Town Clerk in Ephesus, etc). According to Luke, the only trouble around Christians is that stirred up by the Jews, a transparent case of pinning the blame elsewhere; a well-known defence for someone accused of causing riots and fits well with the books being part of Paul's legal defence in the mid-60's. But the same could be put forward in the 70's in defence of Christians as a group, particularly after the Jewish War would have painted the Jews even darker in public imagination and there was a greater need to emphasise the distance between Judaism and the Church. The destruction of Jerusalem would not need to be mentioned as already accomplished; it would have been common knowledge. It was enough to show that Jesus himself had foretold its destruction (Luke ch. 21). Nor would it have been in the interests of later Christians to remind a Roman court that Peter and Paul, their ringleaders, had already been found guilty in a Roman court and executed. So these omissions are understandable. Remember that Luke wasn't writing an impartial history; he was an active advocate! To my mind, any date from the mid-sixties to late 70's is reasonable. As for the other New Testament writings, there is a consensus that Paul's letters were the earliest that we still have extant (the hypothetical 'Q' document might or might not have been a source for some of Paul's quotes). Mark was the first Gospel, John the last. Some of Paul's letters might not have even been written by Paul, but have been attributed to him. Ephesians is the most significant letter to be doubted. Whoever wrote them is not important; that the first readers accepted them as inspired and consistent with Paul is enough for us to accept them too. Hebrews is anonymous and remains so. Revelation was almost certainly written last, in the 90's, but probably not by the same John who wrote John's Gospel. |
||||||
|
Books I asked AI if transcribing was expensive or not? Here is it's answer... Transcribing books in the ancient world was indeed expensive and labor-intensive. Every copy had to be written out by hand, usually by professional scribes or monks, who were highly trained and respected for their skills. The process was slow—creating a single manuscript could take months or even years, especially for lengthy or illustrated works. Materials like papyrus, parchment, or bamboo slips were themselves costly. For example, in ancient Greece, a single sheet of papyrus could cost as much as a day's wages for a skilled worker, making the raw materials for a book quite valuable. In China, before paper became widespread, books written on bamboo slips were also expensive and required careful preservation due to their fragility and the risk of damage from moisture or pests. Because of the high costs in both labor and materials, books were rare and precious possessions, often limited to the wealthy, religious institutions, or government archives. The risk of losing a book to damage or decay was significant, which is why so much effort went into both copying and preserving texts.~ end It's amazing that anything from that time has survived. |
||||||
|
Patz 05:00 Indeed so! There was a limit to what any person (other than the wealthy) or any small group (like a house church) could afford to preserve, so only the most important documents would be copied. It underlines that only books considered to be of very great importance would be preserved. For them to decide what to spend their money on, they would obviously be most swayed by what was most important or helpful to them at the time they had to make the decision. That's why I think it is important to consider 'Sitz im Leben' when reading scripture. What would have convinced THIS community at THIS time under THESE circumstances to spend their scarce resources on that specific book? Would they preserve something that helped them in their daily lives, or would they let that perish so they could preserve a text that only referred to events in the far, unimaginable future? That question and the obvious answer influences my approach to any text regarded as 'prophecy'. That it is prophecy I don't dispute; but what did that community see in that prophecy? Something to place their hopes in day-by-day, or something that might be dozens or even hundreds of generations into the future? My bet is that they would have opted for the more immediate need. That's not to deny that it might also tell of things in the far future, but the community making that decision would not have known that. That is part of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, IMHO. That the immediate need is one component of the whole pattern. |
||||||
|
Why I Favor “Early” Dates for Books of the New Testament It also seems odd that a book about the early church, were it written after 70 A.D., wouldn’t mention the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans. I believe Acts was written in the mid-60s at the latest, and, as I said earlier, Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, and Mark’s Gospel is widely believed to be the first Gospel written. I could argue for a pre-70 A.D. date for all of the Gospels because the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem aren’t included (to my knowledge) in any of the Gospels and yet that destruction fulfilled a prophecy of Jesus Christ’s in the Olivet Discourse about 35 years earlier. I think roughly a third of the Bible is comprised of prophecies, but that doesn’t mean any single book is all about prophecies (maybe Revelation is an exception.) The prophecies are interwoven into the books. |
||||||
|
Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed. Saying look at all these great buildings and Stones not one will be left one top of one another or standing. Sorry I'm at work and talking to my phone trying to remember. It would stand to reason that's such a prophecy that Jesus made. Would be highlighted by anyone who was writing any of those gospels after 78 days that fact would absolutely be an included and it would have been proof that Jesus is who he said he is to the person writing it. So I agree they it had to be written well before 70 ad |
||||||
|
The emmaculate conception And the belief by some that books were "removed" from the New Testament is wrong --- They were simply not included. The number of "not included" books seems to range from 7 to 12 or so. Not included vs removed --- An interesting play with words, huh? www.google.com |
||||||
|
Mo one Yes the conclave held by emperor Constantine only included certain texts. I really like the Book of Thomas myself. However there were a lot of forgeries going on to make money an aquire power. So a standardized official version was needed. |
||||||
|
P. S. Mo one I was wrong about some stuff.... AI .... Query.... The idea that Roman Emperor Constantine set up a conclave to decide which books would be included in the Bible is a common myth. In reality, Constantine did not determine the biblical canon. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which he convened, focused mainly on theological issues like the nature of Christ, not on selecting biblical books. The canon of Scripture was decided later, notably at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and further affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), long after Constantine's death. Non-canonical books are those early Christian writings not included in the official New Testament. These texts—such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Andrew—were often excluded because they were considered to have questionable authorship or teachings that differed from mainstream Christian doctrine. Some were labeled heretical, but most were simply not recognized as authoritative rather than being formally outlawed or banned by decree. While certain heretical teachings were suppressed, there is no strong historical evidence that Constantine or the early councils systematically outlawed all non-canonical books. Many non-canonical writings continued to circulate and influence Christian thought for centuries. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Thanks Apatzer The first Council of Rome (382 AD) taylormarshall.com The Council of Hippo (393 and the Council of Carthage (397) AI Overview The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) were significant regional councils in North Africa that played a role in shaping the Christian canon of scripture, particularly the New Testament. The Council of Hippo, held in 393, recognized the 27 books of the New Testament as canonical, and the Council of Carthage in 397 reaffirmed those canons and issued its own, including a canon of the Bible. Council of Hippo (393): Purpose: The council, held in Hippo Regius, addressed various matters, including the status of the New Testament canon. Key Event: It produced a list of canonical books, including those later recognized by Catholics as deuterocanonical and by Protestants as Apocrypha. Significance: It is one of the earliest councils to explicitly list and approve a Christian biblical canon, closely aligning with the modern Catholic canon. Council of Carthage (397): Purpose: Held in Carthage, this council reaffirmed the canons of Hippo and added its own, including a canon of the Bible. Key Event: It included the canons of Hippo in its own decrees, aiming to disseminate the knowledge of those canons among bishops who may have been unaware of them. Significance: This council provided one of the earliest consistent listings of the books that would form the New Testament canon. Relationship between the two Councils: The Council of Carthage built upon the work of the Council of Hippo, reinforcing its decisions and making them known more widely. The Council of Carthage's canons were also included in the African Code, a collection of canons from various African synods. |
||||||
|
“Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (John 2:18-22) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
dmaestro 24-Apr-25, 13:31 |
Andrew |
||||||
|
Vic 12:38 Your post made me think of something. It makes perfect sense that Jesus used the metaphor of destroying the Temple and he would raise it again in 3 days. Because the Jew's believed that God resided in the holy of holies. So to me that is another tell of who Jesus was, God incarnate who walked amongst us. |
||||||
|
Come to think about it |
||||||
| |||||||
