And this is a sincere question, so please give sincere answers.
Why do you believe that?
As I receive answers, I may post further comments, so be sure to check back in if you want! I wouldn't mind debating this a bit.
2007-07-08 03:31:35 · 14 answers · asked by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, I have heard of the Nicene Council, and I've read several books about it.
I've also studied Roman history.
According to EVERY book I've ever read, the manuscripts were already in existence. They just weren't compiled in one place.
2007-07-08 03:36:33 · update #1
I've also read the findings of the Jesus Seminar, and they're full of crap.
2007-07-08 03:37:22 · update #2
That Paul didn't personally know Jesus is exactly correct. He does, however, mention knowing Simon Peter, one of Jesus's disciples. And Paul never wrote about Jesus's miracles from an eyewitness perspective.
2007-07-08 03:43:19 · update #3
it was written within 45 years of the death of Jesus
2007-07-08 03:34:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
The Gospels and many other writings were in existence during the first three hundred years AD. Many claimed to be written by the apostles but thought to be fakes. The argument was then which of these writings were genuinely written by the apostles and should make up the canon (or what we now call the New Testament). It was during the end of the 4th century AD that various meetings were held (Synod of Hippo -393 &Third of Carthage - 397) and a decision reached as to which writings should go into the canon or the New Testament as we now know it.
2007-07-14 12:36:02 · answer #2 · answered by cheir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe that the books that comprise the New Testament were written in the fourth century CE, but they were not compiled into the cannon of scripture until then. I have in early questions mistakenly said it was at the Council of Nicea where this was done. That is incorrect. It was done at the Council of Hippo later in the 4th century, and even then there was controversy over some of the books included.
Added details:
There were many books considered by some to be part of scripture by some that were not included.
2007-07-08 10:40:17 · answer #3 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello cricket,
I don't know about the 4th century (hadn't heard that one before) but as far as I know the original texts of the NT were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. Of course, a lot of surrounding documents were ultimately not added, a lot of voting went on, so one could say that the 'final' NT wasn't truly compiled and completed until a good while later.
And as far as I know, Paul of Tarsus didn't know Jesus personally. Which makes it not exactly an eye witness account. Which is funny as it is Paul's writings that are often referred to here. And say what you will, but the man was a homophobe.
2007-07-08 10:38:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have never heard anyone assert that the New Testament wasn't written until the 4th century... although it IS certain that it was decided in the 4th century to include certain christian writings in a cannonical corpus, and omit others. They voted on it. In a later gathering, they voted on whether Jesus was divine, or not. As a result of that, those who thought that Jesus was NOT divine (Arians) were declared to be heretics, and were hunted down, tortured and killed.
The first Gospel (Mark) was written after 70 AD. Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a template, and added in 'sayings' of Jesus from a 3rd document known as the 'Q' document... these 2 gospels date from right around the turn of the century. And, the 'sayings of Jesus' that they included are not REALLY sayings of Jesus... they are Judaized versions of Greek 'Cynic' and 'Stoic' philosophical bon-mots.
2007-07-08 10:50:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The New Testament was compiled in the 4th century. Your summation is like saying there was no language or words before the dictionary was written. The dictionary is a compilation of words that existed prior to its writing. The New Testament is a compilation of books that were written before the New Testament of the Bible. Bible means books.
2007-07-15 21:08:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The New Testiment was a compliation of writings and it wasn't uniformly complied until 300 AD.
Not every Church had access to various documents.
Pauls letters when to specific churches and back then these were not necessarily published and shared.
To this day 2 Romans is not in the Bible, they decided not to put it into the Bible.
But there WAS a second letter to the Romans, just like there was two to the Corinthians.
2007-07-08 10:37:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The scholarly consensus is that the canonical "gospels," the letters of "Paul" (many of them pseudepigraphical), the Apocalypse, etc, were written in the 1st and 2nd centuries; though in most cases the earliest codices we possess are much later.
It's true that the canon itself wasn't compiled in its present form from these writings until the 4th century.
2007-07-08 10:37:46 · answer #8 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who even gives a crap?
Jesus said he was sending in the sacred ghost. At the first big believers' convention the sacred ghost shows up, only it's Jesus' uncle wearing a sheet.
That part was written within a few decades. And who cares when Jesus' followers all wrote their stuff.
2007-07-08 10:38:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
How much have you studied on this topic? Have you heard of the Nicene Council? I recommend you study Constantine's influence on the Bible and the findings of The Jesus Seminar.
2007-07-08 10:34:29 · answer #10 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Who believes that? I've never encountered anyone who believed the NT books weren't written until the 4th century.
2007-07-08 10:37:40 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋