English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. ("Canon of the New Testament")
There is a lot of confusion about the earliest existing texts of the Bible. The oldest extant manuscript of the Bible is believed to be the Codex Vaticanus, (preserved in the Vatican Library), which is slightly older than the Codex Sinaiticus (preserved in the British Library), both of which were transcribed in the fourth century.

2007-06-30 16:23:35 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

As for the story of Jesus, there were at least 50 gospels written in the first and second century CE. Four of them (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) were included in the official canon during the fourth century CE and are found today in every Bible. All of the original copies of the gospels were lost. What we have now are handwritten copies, which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals.
Rudolf Bultmann, a prominent 20th-century professor of New Testament studies writes about the life of Jesus:
We can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist. (Bultmann 8)

2007-06-30 16:23:57 · update #1

5 answers

Due to the fact that
Christians use the Protestant Old Testament which is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther may be one of the reasons they ask catholics so many questions.

For the Sola Scriptura this is too bad .
In the 16th c., Luther removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as:

prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45),

Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7),

intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14),

and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).

The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!

Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

2007-07-01 12:22:43 · answer #1 · answered by cashelmara 7 · 0 0

You are misintrepreting history.

The early Church existed before and during the time that the New Testament was written.

There were hundreds of Christian writings during the first and second centuries. Which New Testament writings would become official was not fully decided until about 400 AD.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church (and is guiding the church today) to make the correct choices about things like:
+ Which writings include in the New Testament?
+ The Holy Trinity (which is also only hinted at in the Bible)
+ Going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday (which is actually directly against one of the Ten Commandments)
+ The Communion of Saints

Things that are even more modern like
+ Slavery is bad. Slavery is never declared evil in the Bible. This was one of the justifications for slavery in the Confederate States.
+ Democracy is good. The Bible states that either God should be the leader of the nation like Israel before the kings or kings should be the leader, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." This was talked about a lot during the American Revolution.

This is called Apostolic Tradition.

With love in Christ.

2007-07-02 01:47:16 · answer #2 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 0 0

I don't value Roman Catholic works very much.

They have re-written history so many times to make themselves look good nothing they say can be trusted.

The Anti Nicene Fathers in the sermons which were circulated in the early church contain the names of all the New Testament books in the order they appear today.

And they quote nearly all of it.

You are confused, but Bible believing Christians are not.

Pastor Art

2007-06-30 23:36:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

*Is Catholic*

Yes. So?

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states accurately what Catholics believe.

Bultmann does not state the Catholic faith.

2007-07-01 14:59:58 · answer #4 · answered by Liet Kynes 5 · 0 0

Is it from watchtower again??? When are you going to stop digging rubbish from the JW garbage???

2007-07-01 05:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by Sniper 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers