Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The 'Missing' Apostles
John
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 21 (32574)
02-18-2003 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by truthlover
02-18-2003 12:40 PM


quote:
When you have a situation like that, you have a varying canon, not many canons.
What is the difference between varying canons and differing canons? Differing canons are DIFFERENT canons. You can't call two lists of books the same list, if the lists are different. You appear to be arguing that there was one Canon but that somehow had different incarnations. That just doesn't make any sense. Put it in perspective. If you gathered a dozen grocery lists from your friends, chances are that the lists would be similar, but would you really call them the SAME list?
It is obvious that people considered certain books to have authority, and that not everyone agreed what those books were. You said so yourself. This, pretty much by definition, means that there were multiple canons. That's what a canon is-- a collection of books believed to have special authority.
quote:
I am astounded by your assertion that this is too late to matter, since you asked about the decision of the Council of Carthage, of which there were seven, but the one you are referring to is the 3rd, and it occurred in AD 397, over two centuries after the Muratorian canon.
I didn't ask about the Council of Carthage. That was someone else.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 12:40 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 7:44 PM John has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 17 of 21 (32612)
02-18-2003 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by John
02-18-2003 1:59 PM


Well, I guess I'm an idiot. I'm terribly sorry, for some reason I thought I was answering DaveF. No wonder the post seemed so confusing to me. Sorry.
You asked what the difference is between a varying canon (not varying canons) and differing canons. The difference is that one is a group of people deciding on which of a certain pool of books will end up being in the final canon. That process took time, partly because it took time for books to become that important to the church.
The reason it matters is because you have a point to make. I don't know exactly the point, but I know it has to do with some view you have of what the early church was. The original question brought up things like the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas wasn't in anybody's canon. The reason it gets brought up is by people trying to give credibility to the gnostic section of early Christianity--to make it a valid part of early Christianity. The fact is, the non-gnostic part of early Christianity never, or barely, mention the Gospel of Thomas. It is included in no one's canon. None at all.
The original issue of this thread, which I have not left, nor am willing to leave, was how the canon developed and why other Gospels like Thomas were left out. I said the canon varied, slowly narrowing down to the current choices, but always, from the very beginning, including a certain pool of books written by the non-gnostic Christians. The gnostic books were all, across the board, left out of that pool and were included in no one's canon.
Thus, I prefer to say the canon varied, as choices were made of the best of certain books. I believe you are saying it was many canons, so you can suggest that it was some random, chance, or faulty reason that left out books like Thomas or who knows what else. It wasn't. Thomas and others were out from the beginning. The ones that were in never became out or rejected. They all remained respected works, they simply were not included among writings having apostolic authority. That's all.
And I still cannot understand what your point is by saying that the Muratorian canon is so late you pay no attention to it. Great, ok. Well, you and I are agreed on something. I don't care about the Muratorian canon, either, and I don't care what books finally made it into the canon. I am a disciple of Christ, but I don't accept or care about any canon, because I am a follower of a Spirit, not a book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by John, posted 02-18-2003 1:59 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John, posted 02-19-2003 10:47 AM truthlover has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 21 (32662)
02-19-2003 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by truthlover
02-18-2003 7:44 PM


quote:
You asked what the difference is between a varying canon (not varying canons) and differing canons. The difference is that one is a group of people deciding on which of a certain pool of books will end up being in the final canon. That process took time, partly because it took time for books to become that important to the church.
Then you are considering all of the books in circulation prior to the emergence of a formal Canon, as the same canon? I suppose this works from a modern Christian perspective but consider that the various churches of the first few centuries kept their own collections of sacred books. Do you think that they would agree that it is all the same canon? Nope. They wouldn't. How do I know? Because they didn't. They fought bitterly while the formal canons were being created.
At a glance:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
You can't tell me this is a single canon. Major authorities are in significant disagreement for centuries.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm
quote:
I don't know exactly the point, but I know it has to do with some view you have of what the early church was.
You make having an opinion sound so distasteful.
quote:
The original issue of this thread, which I have not left, nor am willing to leave, was how the canon developed and why other Gospels like Thomas were left out.
Indeed. Is this not what we are discussing?
quote:
I believe you are saying it was many canons, so you can suggest that it was some random, chance, or faulty reason that left out books like Thomas or who knows what else.
Please stop second guessing my 'agenda.' If I wanted to say that there was faulty reasoning, I'd say so. I wouldn't use any of the terms you used. I also wouldn't place the Canon on a pedastal the way most Christians do. You seem to lean this direction but I am not sure. What I object to is the treatment of the NT canon as if it were somehow always there-- created ex nihilo and intact via direct dictation from God, and without the influence of human foible.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 7:44 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by truthlover, posted 02-19-2003 8:03 PM John has replied
 Message 20 by truthlover, posted 02-19-2003 8:10 PM John has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 19 of 21 (32696)
02-19-2003 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
02-19-2003 10:47 AM


quote:
Please stop second guessing my 'agenda.' If I wanted to say that there was faulty reasoning, I'd say so. I wouldn't use any of the terms you used. I also wouldn't place the Canon on a pedastal the way most Christians do. You seem to lean this direction but I am not sure. What I object to is the treatment of the NT canon as if it were somehow always there-- created ex nihilo and intact via direct dictation from God, and without the influence of human foible.
No, I won't stop guessing at your agenda, unless you just like having discussions that never get to the point. I wish you had written the above much earlier.
I do not treat the NT canon as if it were somehow always there--created ex nihilo and intace via direct dictation from God. I do, however, note from history that there was a mainline tradition in Christianity (some say the gnostics were more mainline and more numerous; some of those who say that are a lot more knowledgeable than me, so that's at least possible. There doesn't seem to be consent on that, though.)
That tradition produced some books. I am not making a canon of those books, but I am saying that all the canons you mention, the ones within that tradition, all came from that one set of books. That set of books constituted the choices, so to speak, from which the churches--the ones that are the ancestors of the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants--and those choices slowly narrowed over 300 years. There is not perfect agreement even today.
quote:
How do I know? Because they didn't. They fought bitterly while the formal canons were being created.
They didn't? Says who? They fought bitterly? Says who?
I can see from histories like Eusebius and Socrates (not the philosopher, the 4th centure historian) that the 4th century churches fought bitterly over almost everything. They killed each other till the blood flowed into the streets over which church building to leave a dead bishop's coffin in.
However, from what I can see in the 2nd century, there was some major struggles over the success of gnosticism with a couple Roman bishops and with the day Passover was celebrated on. Those things seem to have been ironed out. The Roman bishops had awful feuds even in the early 3rd century, but I've never seen that any of the pre-Nicene feuds concerned the canon, not even an indication that it happened once.
Do you follow what I'm saying? There are records of a Roman bishop excommunicating the whole eastern part of the Roman empire over the day Passover was celebrated on. The 1st council of Carthage, around 250, was convened to disagree with the bishop of Rome over some other thing that with a little thought I could probably remember. However, there are no such indications that any such things happened over the canon, so I don't believe there was "bitter feuds" unless you can provide some evidence of that. Finding a couple lists that disagree over a couple books or even several is not proof of fighting bitterly.
quote:
You seem to lean this direction but I am not sure
Why aren't you sure? I don't just "seem to lean this direction"; I stated outright I don't accept any canon, nor do I care anything about a canon. I have men I respect, which include Moses, Paul, Isaiah, etc. I don't have a Bible to defend, and I sure don't believe God was trying to write a book for people to follow. I think the fascination with a book and the desire to create a canon is among the worst things that ever happened to the disciples of Christ, and a disciple of the Bible is going to have extreme problems also being a disciple of Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 02-19-2003 10:47 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John, posted 02-19-2003 11:37 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 20 of 21 (32698)
02-19-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
02-19-2003 10:47 AM


One personal thing, John, on this agenda thing you object to. I like to get to the point. If you tell me what you're getting at, then I can either agree with you and drop it, or give you a lot more specific information as to why I disagree with you.
The reason I pushed at your agenda is because you were disagreeing with things that I couldn't understand your disagreement. You even pointed me to a web site that was quoting exactly what I was quoting, and in my opinion, was drawing the same conclusions I was drawing.
Finally, for you to be so vehement--and you were very vehement--that taking a selection of books and narrowing that selection down was differing or competing canons; well, that had to make me wonder why it mattered to you. I do not believe the average, open-minded person would have had any problem with the way I put that, nor would they have tried so hard to force that situation to be called different canons. Most people would have been fine with my description of it, even if they would see it different. It mattered intensely to you, though.
That's why I pushed the agenda thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 02-19-2003 10:47 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 21 (32713)
02-19-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by truthlover
02-19-2003 8:03 PM


quote:
I do not treat the NT canon as if it were somehow always there--created ex nihilo and intace via direct dictation from God.
Yes. I'd already figured that out. You are an atypical christian as per my experience, which why it has been interesting to talk with you. At least, it was interesting until I met a sudden burst of hostility in this and, mostly, in another thread. Now, all I feel is disgust. You keep defending your tendency to guess at agendas, but really, it just jumping the gun. It is nothing but pretending to read minds. I have better things to do than play that game.
Impatience is not a virtue.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 02-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by truthlover, posted 02-19-2003 8:03 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024