/ Topic > Re: Judas - One of the Good Guys? / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 10 Sept 2000 /
.
> Charles Wyndham wrote: Do you doubt that it was God's intention that Christ should be crucified?
.
 textman answers: Dear Charles, yes, I do doubt it. God's intention was that the Son of Man should experience the full measure of human life. And that naturally includes the experience of death; but there's nothing absolutely necessary saying that this death must be by way of crucifixion. However, Jesus realized early on in his ministry (ie. after the death of JB) that his fate would *also* be that of all the other great prophets.
.
> Or do you think that He should have been left to live to a ripe old age?
.
 Few prophets and radical reformers are fortunate enough to live to a ripe old age. Martin Luther is one who had this happy fate, so it's by no means impossible.
.
> So Judas, whether he intended to or not, was only furthering God's
> purpose when he pointed Christ out to the priests and soldiers.
.
 I think that's a very debatable point.
.
> Luke 22:3 explains that it was not Judas' own idea: "Then Satan entered Judas".
.
 The author of Lk-Acts may well be theologically correct in this proposition, but (historically speaking) it would be misleading to suppose that Judas did not act on his own volition.
.
> But why should Satan wish to further God's purpose?
.
 Satan wishes ONLY to further his own purpose.
.
> If It was not Judas' own idea, it would have been necessary for God to put the idea into his head.
> Which He seems to have done by sending Satan as his messenger?
.
 Nonsense. Judas' actions can be perfectly well understood without recourse to divine intervention. For example, Judas was a Zealot who joined the disciples with the hope that the Messiah would deliver Israel from the yoke of Roman bondage. But when he realized that Jesus did not conceive of his ministry in that way (ie. "My Kingdom is NOT of this world"), he must have been very discouraged indeed. It has even been suggested that Judas betrayed Jesus in the hope that Jesus would thereby be forced into the role of 'military messiah'. But this only goes to show how little Judas really understood of the true nature of the Son of Man.
.
> Poor Judas. Stigmatised as a traitor for doing what God needed him to do! No wonder he took his own life.
.
 He took his life because he realized that Jesus would not be forced into acting contrary to his true nature. He realized that Jesus' death was entirely his fault, and nothing he could do could make up for that crime. His suicide was an act of despair; a desperate attempt to make up for his actions by way of the uncompromising demands of justice (ie. a life for a life).
.
 However, I will agree that Judas has been stigmatized by Christians for all the wrong reasons. They lavish sympathy upon Peter for his betrayal, but come up short when it comes to Judas. Instead they should follow the Lord's own example: Jesus loved Judas despite his weaknesses and shortcomings, and he would have been the first to forgive him his sins. Would that we could do likewise!

/ Topic >  Re: Judas - One of the Good Guys?-2 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 14 Sept 2000 /
.
>> tx previously say: Few prophets and radical reformers are fortunate enough to live to a ripe old age.
>> Martin Luther is one who had this happy fate, so it's by no means impossible.
.
> Charles Wyndham replies: Martin Luther did not die for our sins.
.
 textman answers: Of course not. But he did, like Jesus, attempt to reform the practice of religion as it was being done in his day.
.
> Without Christ's execution (whether by the Cross or any other means)
> there would be no reason to claim that he gave his life for us,
.
 I disagree. The Lord's death is irrelevant to the fact that He gave his life for us. The whole of his ministry comes out of his giving his life for others. Thus we must make a distinction here between 'giving his *life* for us' and 'giving his *death* for us'. Jesus did both, of course, but the latter could not have come about without the former.
.
> great swathes of Paul's teaching would be invalidated, the whole nature of Christianity would
> be changed - in fact Christianity would probably not exist.
.
 The idea that Jesus came 'to die for our sins' logically implies that his life, his mission, and even his person, are of secondary importance to his role as sacrificial lamb. As far as I'm concerned, this is the single greatest weakness in Paul's gospel and theology. Now I'm not denying that there are many passages within the New Testament that emphasize the salvific value of the Lord's death, but even so, it seems to me that his life, ministry, and person are necessarily of greater significance to the nature and quality of our common and shared faith.
.
> Do you REALLY think that God did not intend what occurred, that God's only intention
> was that the Son of Man should experience the full measure of human life.
.
 I would not say that it was God's *only* intention. Clearly, what Jesus intended was to reform the faith of Israel according to his new vision of the nature and person of God (ie. as the Heavenly Father).
.
 He answered, "Let us go elsewhere, into the surrounding villages, so that I can preach there too. For that is what I came to do." - Mk 1:38
.
 In other words, Jesus came not to die, but to preach (and manifest) the coming of the Kingdom of God. In this he was not foretelling the appearance of the Roman Catholic Church (as the Cats foolishly suppose), but rather the reign of God in the hearts of his People (ie. a spiritual "kingdom").
.
>>> CW previously say: So Judas, whether he intended to or not, was only furthering God's
>>> purpose when he pointed Christ out to the priests and soldiers.
.
>> tx: I think that's a very debatable point.
.
> CW: Only if you do not accept the general view of God's purpose.
.
 I'm not the sort to accept the general view of anything; at least, not without considerable prior reflection and consideration. For example, John's vision of Judas strikes me as harsh in the extreme. At one point he even accuses him of being a thief:
.
 (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.) -- John 12:6 / NETbible
.
 Now this is surely highly unlikely. Realistically, if Judas was abusing his position as treasurer, he would have been discovered somewhere down the line, and the duty given to someone more responsible. Moreover, how likely is it that the Lord would have given such a task to a thief?
.
>>> CW: Luke 22:3 explains that it was not Judas' own idea: "Then Satan entered Judas".
.
 Luke got this idea from John, who says the same thing: "And after Judas took the piece of bread Satan entered into him" (Jn 13:27). If, therefore, Satan was acting through Judas, it cannot be God's purpose that was being served, but rather Satan's.
.
>> tx: The author of Lk-Acts may well be theologically correct in this proposition, but (historically
>> speaking) it would be misleading to suppose that Judas did not act on his own volition.
.
> CW: What do you mean by 'historically speaking'? If Judas was acting
> on his own volition why was it necessary for Satan to intervene?
.
 That's just the point, Charles. It was *not* necessary for Satan to intervene. The idea that 'Satan entered into him' is a theological interpretation of Judas' actions to the end of magnifying his evil intent, and thereby explaining his actions in terms that could be understood by people in a pre-scientific culture.
.
>>> CW: But why should Satan wish to further God's purpose?
.
>> tx: Satan wishes ONLY to further his own purpose.
.
> CW: There are a number of places in the OT where Satan (or perhaps satan) appears as God's messenger.
> An example is the story of Balaam's ass who was checked by the Angel of the Lord as 'adversary' - the
> Hebrew, correctly uses the word 'satan'. There are a number of other examples. Reconciling 2Samuel 24
> with 1 Chronicles 21 virtually requires Satan to be seen as God's messenger. Perhaps Matthew was
> just using the word in this sense.
.
 Perhaps (which verse in Matthew?), but you must also bear in mind that the meaning of the word changed dramatically over the centuries. But even in the book of Job, where the adversary is very much a part of the heavenly court, Satan was acting on his own behalf.
.
>>> CW: If It was not Judas' own idea, it would have been necessary for God to put the idea
>>> into his head. Which He seems to have done by sending Satan as his messenger?
.
>> tx: Nonsense. Judas' actions can be perfectly well understood without recourse to divine intervention.
>> For example, Judas was a Zealot who joined the disciples with the hope that the Messiah would deliver
>> Israel from the yoke of Roman bondage. But when he realized that Jesus did not conceive of his ministry
>> in that way (ie. "My Kingdom is NOT of this world"), he must have been very discouraged indeed. It has
>> even been suggested that Judas betrayed Jesus in the hope that Jesus would thereby be forced into the
>> role of 'military messiah'. But this only goes to show how little Judas really understood of the true nature
>> of the Son of Man.
.
> All this is possible, but relies on a lot of assumptions for which there is no evidence.
.
 I would not say that there is *no* evidence. For example, there is the evidence of Judas' alleged name: Iscariot. This has been linked to the word 'sicarii', which means 'dagger'. In other words, Judas was one of the 'dagger-men', who were a very militant group of anti-Roman zealots. Everything else follows logically from that.
.
> CW: About the only real evidence we have is Matthew's.
.
 Which verses are you referring to?
.
>>> CW: Poor Judas. Stigmatised as a traitor for doing what God needed him to do!
>>> No wonder he took his own life.
.
>> tx: He took his life because he realized that Jesus would not be forced into acting contrary to his true
>> nature. He realized that Jesus' death was entirely his fault, and nothing he could do could make up
>> for that crime. His suicide was an act of despair; a desperate attempt to make up for his actions by
>> way of the uncompromising demands of justice (ie. a life for a life). <snip remainder>
.
> CW: Again possibly true, even though there is no evidence.
.
 Again I must disagree. The portrait of Judas we get in the NT is doubtless biased against him; but beneath the text it is possible to discern a man who was both passionate and committed to justice. I have no doubt that (in his own way) he truly loved Jesus. If we are able to see Judas as real man acting according to his own principles and deeply held beliefs (rather than simply as a puppet of Satan), then there is no reason not to accept all that I have said as having a basis in historical reality.
.
> It might have been better if you had offered it as a possibility, not as a fact.
.
 It seems to me that treating Judas as a real man is far more sensible and true to history than simply assuming that he was a puppet of the "higher powers".
.
> But the betrayal still seems to have been necessary for the development of Christianity -
> he still was doing just what God needed him to do. <snip remainder>
.
 Obviously we have very different conceptions of the nature of the historical process. Your view is very similar to that of the Calvinists whereby everything is fore-ordained and predetermined, and where God is little more than a cosmic puppet-master pulling the strings of everyone so that things will work out according to the "divine plan". My view is that history is necessarily and fundamentally open-ended because human beings are endowed by God with free will (not the *illusion* of free will). This means that people choose their own destiny, and history is what it is simply because that's the way things happened to turn out. Judas did not *have to* betray Jesus because God wanted Christ crucified. He made his own choices (right or wrong); just as we today have to make our own choices whether we will obey the Lord's commands or not ...

/ Topic >  Re: Judas - One of the Good Guys?-3 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 17 Sept 2000 /
.
> On Sept16 Charles Wyndham wrote: I agree with quite a lot of what you say, particularly in
> the attitude that we must come to our own conclusions, not blindly accept the conclusions
> of others (have I got it right?).
.
 textman replies: Dear Chas, that's a big Aye-firmative!
.
> So I will comment mainly on the differences and cut the rest. - Chas
.
 Good plan. I've also got my snippers sharpened up ...  :)
.
 <snip>  . . .  See?
.
>>> Chas previously wrote: great swathes of Paul's teaching would be invalidated, the whole
>>> nature of Christianity would be changed - in fact Christianity would probably not exist.
.
>> textman previously replied: The idea that Jesus came 'to die for our sins' logically implies that his life, his
>> mission, and even his person, are of secondary importance to his role as sacrificial lamb. As far as I'm
>> concerned, this is the single greatest weakness in Paul's gospel and theology. Now I'm not denying that
>> there are many passages within the New Testament that emphasize the salvific value of the Lord's death,
>> but even so, it seems to me that his life, ministry, and person are necessarily of greater significance to
>> the nature and quality of our common and shared faith.
.
> There is, of course, a lot of opinion involved here. I would not attempt to say that one part of his life and
> death is more significant than any other. It seems from the way that the Gospels lead up to and climax at
> the Crucifixion that the gospellers had a clear view of its significance.
.
 Oh, no doubt. But even in the gospels there is a strong awareness of the importance and value of the Lord's pre-death ministry. 4X:
.
 "I have been born and have come into the world for this reason — to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." - John 18:37 / NETbible
.
> I would maintain my opinion that Christianity would be vastly different and probably
> would not exist but for the Crucifixion.
.
 I'll agree that the Faith would be different, but not that it "would not exist but for the Crucifixion". The Resurrection would have occurred regardless of the manner of death, and it was the Resurrection that re-energized the flagging faith of the disciples, and set them on the road to Christianity.
.
> It exists in its present form due to Paul's teaching, which was based primarily on the love of God as
> evidenced by the sacrifice of his Son to redeem sin, rather than on Christ's detail teaching. Christ's
> ministry was confined to Israel where it had only a minor and transient success. It is impossible to
> say what would have happened if he had had more time, or for that matter if he wanted more time.
.
 That's true enough. Second guessing history is inherently risky.
.
> Some essential points of Christianity are involved. The Resurrection as evidence of a life after
> death, the redemption of sin, and so on. Is present Christianity the work of Satan through Judas?
.
 Certainly not! However, the present corrupt nature of the Faith as it is manifested in the most popular churches (Cats and Fundies) owes much to the destructive influence of the Evil One.
.
> Or is it all just an accidental result of Judas being selected by Christ?
.
 No, I wouldn't say that either.
.
> Or was it intended by God?
.
 I think it's safe to say that God intended the Faith to reach out and embrace the world (so as to transform it), but the specific details arose from the actions of free men and women as they came into contact with the Good News.
.
 Let's look at this question from another angle. Did God intend for John the Baptist to be beheaded? Did he interfere with the surrounding events so as to bring about that end? Or was it simply the ill-will of Herod's wife that caused John's death? Now Providence works softly and silently within the historical process, but I don't think that God is the sort of person who wishes a violent end to His good servants.
.
 <snipsome>
.
> Was John's Gospel written before Luke?
.
 Oh yes. I have no doubt of that. Dating the four gospels is a matter of combining the evidence of the texts with the evidence of church history. Thus the social background of John's Gospel suggests that it was written during the peak of 'the parting of the ways' (between Judaism and Christianity). This would place its origin in the years 90-100CE. But Lk-Acts was written *after* this painful separation, when the Faith was well-established within the larger Greco-Roman society (approximately 115CE). Of course, the evidence of the texts supports this conclusion (cf. Lk 1:1-2), but most scholars and scribes reject such a proposal because they prefer to imagine that all the NT documents were finished and complete before the end of the first century. Thus most Christians fancy that the fact of biblical inspiration allows them to suppose a magical genesis for the NT books; one that is in no way dependent upon, or conditioned by, the logic of history and the real-world development of the Faith. Needless to say, I thoroughly reject any approach that relies on such irrational magical-thinking.
.
> You do not make it clear whether you agree that Satan was acting through Judas, or whether it
> is again just a theological interpretation of Judas' actions. The difference is rather important!
.
 I don't believe that Satan was acting through Judas. I do believe that this idea is a theological interpretation and explanation of Judas' actions. Also, I don't believe that the difference is all that important (since both views are pointing toward the same reality).
.
 <snipsome>
.
>> tx: But even in the book of Job, where the adversary is very much a part of the heavenly court,
>> Satan was acting on his own behalf.
.
> CW: Or as representing the Jews who had remained in Jerusalem and wanted a part in the
> rebuilding of it. You are probably aware of current interpretations of this story.
.
 No, I don't think so ... ???
.
 <snip a bit>
.
>> I would not say that there is *no* evidence. For example, there is the evidence of Judas' alleged
>> name: Iscariot. This has been linked to the word 'sicarii', which means 'dagger'. In other words,
>> Judas was one of the 'dagger-men', who were a very militant group of anti-Roman zealots.
>> Everything else follows logically from that.
.
> CW: Perhaps you read too much into a mere name.
.
 Not at all. Today names mean nothing, to be sure, but it was not like this in the past. Projecting present realities into the past is highly unhistorical, and an offense to the truth.
.
> Is it likely that Christ would have chosen a militant anti-Roman zealot as a disciple -
> unless he knew what militant anti-Roman zealot views would lead to?
.
 If Jesus could choose tax-collectors and lawyers (who were universally hated) as disciples, then he could certainly choose a dagger-man as well.
.
 <snipsome>
.
>> It seems to me that treating Judas as a real man is far more sensible and true to history than
>> simply assuming that he was a puppet of the "higher powers".
.
> Is it your view that God (and Satan) never uses people to further his ends?
.
 Certainly not! Throughout history God has used certain men (chiefly the prophets) to further his ends, and continues to do so even unto this very day. In the same way, the Evil One is very much active in the corrupt and spiritually desolate churches of Canada (although the law of the land forbids me from naming names).
.
 <snip some>
.
> I have no knowledge of Calvinist theology and am very dubious about ideas on pre-destination.
> But by sending Christ God shows that he is prepared to intervene in history.
.
 I agree.
.
> Having sent Christ it is reasonable to think that he would see that his purpose in doing so was fulfilled.
.
 No doubt it was.
.
> There is a serious difficulty between God's supposed omniscience and absolute free will - I have
> posted a new thread "Free Will and God's Omniscience" which has so far not attracted any replies.
> You may like to look at it.
.
 Actually, I can't find any such article here. Are you sure you posted it to a.r.c.biblestudy? In any case, feel free to email me a copy, if you wish.

P.S.  "Don't believe in Jesus" -- John Lennon (the musical messiah)
        "Don't believe in Lennon" -- the cyber-prophet

/ Topic > Re: Canonicity-1 / 10 Oct 2000 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On Oct4, Wallster wrote: Knowing that you all put great store in biblical scholarship,
> perhaps one of you would be good enough to answer a question for me.
.
 textman answers, Dear Wallster, answering *a* question is one thing, but answering a whole series of difficult questions is quite another matter . . .  :)
.
> By the end of the third century AD, Christianity was already a world religion, although the known world
> at that time was much smaller [and slower] than it is today. Still, geographical distances and local
> church politics were producing divergent beliefs among the faithful,
.
 You say that like this was a novel development in church history. In point of fact, "geographical distances and local church politics were producing divergent beliefs among the faithful" even in Paul's day (mid-first century), and have not ceased doing so ever since!
.
> and the geopolitical differences, it was rightly felt,
.
 Rightly felt by *whom*, Wallster? There were no Fundies in the fourth century!
.
> could best be overcome by the adoption of a universal canon.
.
 I do not share your view that "the adoption of a universal canon" was to the end of 'overcoming' diversity and pluralism among the faithful. That was not the problem, and has never been the problem. The problem was the ever-growing mass of Christian literature; the bulk of which claimed apostolic authority and authorship. Many of these documents were basically harmless exercises in pious fantasy (few took them literally), but there were other documents (gospels and epistles) that were obviously subversive and destructive of the authentic faith of the early Greek churches. For example, there once was a second-century book called (today) 'The Secret Gospel of Mark' which portrays Jesus as the homo-Messiah. This document thus shows us two things: 1) that the heretics were very clever in mimicking the form and style of the earliest Christian literature; and 2) that 'the Ones of Old' were attacking the Faith from within, just as they are still doing today. The only difference is that today there are precious few willing to object to their smurfy Gospel of Perversion!
.
> To meet this need, the Christian bible, as it is now constituted,
> was compiled by the Tridentine Council in the fourth century,
.
 What's that you say? According to my sources, the Tridentine Council was held in the sixteenth century. Gee Wallster, you're only *off* by over a millennium! Here is one good reason for ALL bible-students to "put great store in biblical scholarship". By immersing yourself in church-history, and by double-checking your facts before you post, you can "usually" avoid amateur mistakes like this one.
.
> and representatives of the principal Churches of the day contributed to the effort.
.
 "contributed" is right. It was *not* the bishops who recognized the need for a canon, and promptly worked together to that end. Rather, it was the Emperor Constantine who recognized the necessity for some measure of unity and cohesion in the religion that would henceforth bear the official seal of Empire approval; and charged the bishops to accomplish it. If Constantine hadn't lit a fire under the episocpal buttocks there would have been no adoption of a universal canon in the fourth century! Think about the implications of that possibility.
.
> The result was a compromise,
.
 Indeed! ... And isn't that always the case with all organized religions in general?
.
> since up to the time if its acceptance in its present form,
.
 "it's acceptance in its present form" ... I am none too thrilled by your diction and phrasing, Wallster. The way you say that suggests to me that you are of the opinion that this copy of this wonderful modern bible you hold in your hands was *made* in the fourth century, and that all that has happened in the time between Constantine's fifty great cathedral bibles and today was that copies were made. What I mean is that you don't seem to appreciate the plain fact that there is a *world* of difference between those huge, clumsy, and very impressive *GREEK* bibles, and your carefully edited and designed pocket KJV. So let me impress upon all bible-students the necessity of understanding that modern-bibles did not exist *like that* prior to the Reformation. No way jose!
.
> the various Churches each had their own canon, with apparently minimal overlap.
> This much is well documented, and I do not question either the process or the result.
.
 Your lack of curiosity and blind acceptance of the current scholarly consensus regarding these matters truly dismays me, Wallster. The history of the canonical process certainly requires *much* further investigation, I think.
.
> My questions regard the Council itself:
.
 Are you referring to the first council of Nicaea in 325CE? Or some other fourth century council? It is difficult to answer questions when one does not know exactly what they are in reference to.
.
> 1) Who were the scholars or clerics who comprised the Council, and how were they selected?
.
 Those who comprised the first council were mostly bishops, and politics played a large part in the selection of its members.
.
> 2) I have been instructed that the Council worked under Divine guidance,
.
 I wouldn't place too much stock in that idea! The main achievements of the first council were the production of the Nicene Creed, and the defeat of Arianism (ie. the bishops present denounced it as heresy; thus making anti-Arianism the 'orthodox' position).
.
 In the same way, the results of the Council of Trent (1545-63) were:
1) A reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed as the basis of faith.
2) The production of the Catechism of Trent.
3) Defined the theology of the sacraments in general.
4) Approved and encouraged the Counter-Reformation.
.
 But for bible-students these accomplishments are very secondary to the following three items:
.
5) Upheld the validity of both scripture and tradition as sources of religious truth. Needless to say, the bishops were both right *and* wrong on this point.
.
6) Declared that the Church alone has the sole authority to interpret the Bible. This is one reason why they opposed the mass publication and distribution of the scriptures. The theologians pointed to things like the Peasants War as good examples of the fruits of Protestantism with its diverse abundance of conflicting interpretations. Well, they were certainly right about one thing: a diverse abundance of conflicting interpretations is precisely what you get *whenever* you place the Word into the hands of the People. :)
.
7) A definitive statement regarding those books to be included among the pages of the Holy Bible (ie. the canonical and deutero-canonical works). Here we must stress that the bishops were very right (we might even say inspired) to approve books that the Protestants felt (for various reasons) were not be included in God's eternal words. Hells Bells man, if Luther had his way, the book of James and Revelation would both have wound up on the garbage heap! Thx a lot there Martin!
.
 Luther was certainly *NOT* inspired in his zealously negative attitude toward the prophet Jacob's sermons. He was simply too blinded by the brilliance of his own insights into pauline literature, and by the approval of Jm by both friends and foes, to be able to get over his own strong biases enough to see the text clearly for what it is and says.
.
> but of course, that is not documented in the bible:
.
 Then, we may logically conclude, it is safe to assume that there is no biblical basis for such a notion.
.
 Those who wish to know more about the first council may want to consult chapter eight ('Constantine and the Council of Nicaea') of 'The Early Church' by Henry Chadwick.
.
> Where does this information originate?
.
 One source always worth investigating is 'The History of the Church' by Bishop Eusebius; which presents a wealth of information (*AND* misinformation) about the pre-Constantinian Greek churches.

P.S.  Regarding this 'Warriors for Christ' matter:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke).

/ Topic >  Re: Canonicity-2 / 15 Oct 2000 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On Oct9 Savage Hawk wrote: <snipsome> As to how the books of the Bible were determined ...
> first off, the Church accepted the Jewish Cannon according to the Greek language rendering of the
> 70 Elders, commonly known as the Septuagint [aka LXX], as it's "Old Testament".
.
 textman answers: Dear Savage Hawk, where and when exactly did this "Old Testament" business begin again? Even in the second century CE there was talk of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures; which were in no way categorized or restricted to any "canon". As I recall, it was Marcion (the heretic) who started this whole ballyhoo about canons. The early Christians had no need for canons because most literate believers were sensible enough to recognize good scripture when they saw it. And even if they weren't, they had prophets and teachers who could sort out the
trash from the real-mckoy.
.
> This included the Apocraphyl books. Note that the Jewish rendering
> according to the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia was NOT accepted.
.
 Not accepted by *who*, SH? Do you have any relevant texts (from whatever period you're talking about) to show that there is documentary evidence to back up your assertions?
.
> I think the Jews today use a descendant of the Jamnian text.
.
 What?
.
> For the New Testament, The Bishops of the Church rounded up copies of all of the texts being read by
> Christians, and began to sort through them, seeking texts that fulflled certain criteria. First, they had to
> have connections to the Apostles, or at least a disciple of an Apostle of Christ. Secondly, they had to be
> in wide circulation among the Churches, and lastly had a certain 'ring of truth. Spurious or dubious texts
> were rejected. So it worked out to being the 'mind of the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit'.
.
 Well, that's certainly a nice rosy view of things you have there, Hawk; considering that the book of Revelation was very nearly voted *out*! Perhaps not all the bishops were correctly wired into this so-called "mind of the Church"? Nor does their criteria leave much room for boasting, since the bulk of the NT was not (in fact) written by first- generation believers (although they had no real way of knowing that). But I'll agree that the main thing was their recognition of what the churches had already accepted as authoritative.
.
> The Bishops didn't choose on their own, but rather what the Church had accepted.
.
 It would maybe be less biased if you rephrased: Bishops didn't choose on their own authority, but rather on what the early Greek local/house-churches had *already* accepted as normative for the Faith.
.
> And , by the way, the cannon of scripture wasn't considered closed, until around 1000 AD
> in the Orthodox east,
.
 Oh yeah? What happened then? A council of bishops made a statement or something? Can you show us the relevant parts of this document?
.
> and the Council of Trent in 1473 AD in the Roman Catholic west ...  -- SH
.
 What source are you getting your information from, Savage Hawk? 1473?! Are you *sure* that's the right number, Hawk? According to *my* sources, the Council of Trent took place (more than once) between the years 1545-63. It's kind of hard to mistake an 18 year period for one year; unless you're really not paying much attention to history. And if you're really not paying attention, why on earth should you expect us to believe that you even know what you're talking about?

P.S.  Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism:
Two blind mice groping through the darkness for their lost third.

/ Topic > Re: Alleged NT Discrepancies? / TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics / Date > 5 Oct 2002 /
.
> On 12sept composer wrote: <snip> St. Gregory, Fourth-Century Bishop of Nazianzus, writing to St.
> Jerome: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend,
> the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what
> circumstances and necessity dictated" ...
.
textman say: Hi composer. Darn fine article you got here, bud. I just want to say that I tend to agree with most of the observations (by the fathers) that you cited. Especially the good bishop Gregory here. I can't help but think that the saint had Irenaeus in mind specifically; for there are few who could match the Liar-Bishop of Lyons in the production of pure misinformation; justified on the basis of the need to establish orthodoxy in the face of many virulent and obscene heresies! At any rate, Gregory (and others) show us that such practices are entirely incompatible with Christian honesty, and must be exposed for what they are. Errors as regards NT references to the Tanahk can be excused as unfortunate mistakes. Writing in the name of the early Christian heroes (as 4X 2Peter does) can also be excused as a necessary literary device. But when these things are pushed to extremes (as with Irenaeus) they are no longer justified by appeal to the greater glory of God. Paulos of Damascus was wrong to think that the end justifies the means, and we are all still paying dearly for that over-zealous mistake!

/ Topic > Re: Bible Question / 23 Feb 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.atheism, alt.christnet.bible, alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> skepses previously wrote: Thank you for the correction. Matthew and John produced their own books - the
>> books of Matthew and John. This is documented in the writings of Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, who was
>> disciple to the apostle John. John is also quoted in the writings of Ignatius, AD 70 - 110, laying to rest the
>> claim that the book of John was not written until AD 160 or thereabouts. Irenaeus also writes of Mark,
>> the disciple and interpreter of Peter, passing Peter's preachings on in the book of Mark, and of Luke, the
>> follower of Paul, setting down Paul's teaching in the book of Luke. This is supported by the quotations
>> of Irenaeus' writings from the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke; and Ignatius' writings quoting from
>> Matthew and John. Papias writes in AD 130 that 'Matthew recorded the oracles in Hebrew tongue'.
>> Unless you can refute such recorded facts, there is no reason to suppose that the Gospels were not
>> written by the people who bear their name.
.
> On 15Feb2000 Libertarius replied: Scholarly opinion is against you. ALL FOUR of those books are
> considered written (completed) by unknown authors. It was an ancient practice to ascribe books to
> historical or legendary "authoritative" figures, such as Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, Enoch, etc.
> Christian compilers followed the same tradition and ascribed the four books, written by unknown
> authors, to individuals they considered "authority". Open any scholarly textbook on the New
> Testament to see how this happened.
.
 erasmian adds: Dear Libertarius, quite right. It was the vexing problem of *authority* that more than anything else decided not only the authorship of the various NT books, but also determined the matter of inclusion in the Christian canon. FOR THAT VERY REASON these early Church Fathers said the things they said. I think it most amusing that skepses should refer to the *opinions* of these men as "facts" when it ought to be perfectly obvious that most of the time they are talking through their theological hats. 4X: Matthew was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew; so that just goes to show you how much Papias (and his pompous priestly pals) knew!
.
 The point I would like to stress here, is that the authority of the NT books does *not* depend on some mystical authority attributed to the first generation of believers, but resides in the fact that these mostly anonymous authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down the words of light and life and truth!