They are not forgeries. They were not written using another person’s signature for the purpose of defrauding someone or to acquire wealth or gain. Rather, they were written in the spirit of an earlier writer to convey a message. More importantly, they were not selected for inclusion among scripture because they bore the name of an earlier author, but because they expressed beliefs shared by the community. Quite a few pseudonymous works have been excluded from scripture because they expressed beliefs not held in common by the Christian community.
The tradition of such writing goes back at least as far as the trans-Exilic prophets of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, (most famously the three separate authors of Isaiah). The acceptance of such works, based on their expression of common belief or their rejection for a failure to do the same extends back nearly as far.
I don’t see anything that prevents an author from writing in the spirit of an apostle without claiming to be that apostle, and IMO there is zero chance that these books would have been included in the canon if they had not claimed to be by apostles. The claim may not have been sufficient, but it was necessary.
You seem to be implying that the books were known to be pseudonymous at the time of their adoption, and that is patently not the case. To use your own example of Isaiah, Calvin’s commentary on that book cited the anachronistic mention of Cyrus as “striking proof of the truth and certainty of the prophecies,” and the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1908 concluded “There are no solid arguments to the fore, even taken cumulatively, to prove that the book of Isaias is to be attributed not to Isaias himself alone, but to two or rather to many authors.”
There are numerous books in the canon which make no claim to apostolic authorship, starting with the four gospels. Clearly, then, a text did not have to claim apostolic authorship in order to be received as canonical.
The letter of “Paul” to the Hebrews is traditionally placed last in the sequence of Pauline epistles (which are otherwise arranged in descending order of size) because it’s Pauline authorship has always been doubted. Conversely the canonicity of Revelations was long disputed, despite the fact that it is explicitly attributed in its own text to John.
Previous generations didn’t have the benefit of modern biblical scholarship when it came to identifying the authors of texts, but it doesn’t follow that they invariably simplistically assumed that the traditional attribution, or the explicit internal attribution, of a text was 100% reliable; they were quite capable of doubting or rejecting it. This was a relevant factor, but not a deciding factor, in receiving a text as canonical or declining to receive it.
Like God in general, the trinity is hard to understand. We can’t see God so we can’t understand. People only believe what they see. Jesus last words before ascending to heaven were. you believe because you see, blessed are those who believe but cannot see. That’s us.
Here’s a ton of verses that talk about the Trinity in both the old and new Testament. Plenty of NT verses on them. Jesus was always subordinate as the Son. God said this is my son whom I am well pleased - the second figure of the God -head.
Jesus was tempted as the son. God breathed his breath, his spirit, into the church in Acts 2. In Genesis, God created the heaven and earth and thus the father, son and holy spirit. AMEN.
The Trinity has always been a divisive issue in the church as you can see in this forum,
You are correct that the Bishops did not Have a whole book, there were many different writings by many different people, but they did decide what was of God or inspired by God, The Bible itself is like a library made up of several books. The Gospels of Judas, Thomas etc. were not among the writings that were included. But it is a proven fact, that every thing ever written, taught , thought, or said of God is of human beings, and our belief is not in God but what some other person’s idea or word, said, thought , taught, or wrote.
How much was put in the Bible was by the monks while translating and writing the Bible. There is every possibility of that, plus using Peter as head of his Church, Jesus died a Jew and if he wanted a different religion is debatable. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many contradictory passages.
In all the history books I have read or was told of, It was Constantine who called the bishops to form a Universal Church and the Creed starts the holy, catholic church. I have heard this prayer used at Catholic and Lutheran Church’s at weddings or funerals. It was (as I understood it) that Constantine saw how much political pull he would get from a Universal Church. Probably why Peter’s successor was chosen as head of the church. It then became the Holy Catholic Church.
Why God would inspire a man like Constantine to have a Cross in the sky, then say by this sign shall you conquer, doesn’t sound like something a Supreme Being would do. It sounds like that God could have just had everyone understand things the same way, and surely wouldn’t need a man who conquered a lot of countries by blood shed! Of course it is said God chose a murderer and adulterer to lead his people and his son’s linage.
More absolutist claims that miss the nuances of the events that occurred. You say “the bishops,” but you carefully do not specify which bishops. In fact, it was not “the bishops” who decided “what was of God or inspired by God.” It was, instead, a long line of people, some bishops, some priests, some lay people, who expressed their views on the topic so that the bishops of the late fourth century simply ratified the decision that the overall church had already made over the course of three hundred years. This does not make the those decisions correct, but it is not the sort of unilateral and arbitrary action of a tiny number of bishops in a single instance that you wish to imply.
I am quite willing to accept that everything written by humanity was actually written by humanity. Your claim that it is a “proven fact” that nothing of those ideas originated from God is simply your viewpoint that has not actually been “proven.”
Not very much and we can identify most of it. We already have texts dating to the years prior to the first establishment of religious orders. The notion that any significant portion of scripture is actually the interposition of nameless monks is an idea popular among those who have never studied scripture, but is not supported by facts.
It is certainly arguable that Jewish or Christian scriptures are nothing more than the imaginative writings of a group of people with shared beliefs. However, you do yourself no service with silly claims about bishops “deciding” what became scripture or anonymous monks changing the texts or claiming “proofs” that are simply not proven.
That it took longer makes it no less of a ‘populararity’ or even politicized thing - what we have seems woefully limited - and very self serving.
Assuming what I recall of the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ - if it were truly written by him - it was a fully ‘Gnosis’ (?) approach in that he questioned if Jesus ‘actually’ walked among them period - polar opposite of the rest of the eventually accepted canon.
That’s what I find interesting about this - again, if my memory is correct - we actually NOW have writings (thanks to the dead sea scrolls, etc) that are reasonably well attributed to actual ‘eye witnesses’ - yet the ‘formal’ church continues to ignore them - I guess its inconvenient.
Even what’s recorded in Acts shows the almost immediate split in the original followers - it really causes one to wonder what writings and information was lost because it didn’t match what the church ‘leaders’ felt was the ‘truth’ - You say laypeople had a hand in it
Anyway - i’m sure you’ll correct my memory on some of the points above - but my original comment is the most important - whether it was over a period of years/decades or over the course of one ‘council’ visit - the ‘canon’ we have is still based on a popularity contest.
Beyond that, the phrase “self-serving” is a meaningless pejorative in this case. Scripture is an expression of the faith of the people who embrace it. This is not an argument for its truth or accuracy, just an observation about the relationship between the texts and the people who employ them.
If you wish to dismiss it as “popularity,” that is your choice, although I suspect that in doing so you miss some of the human dynamics that are involved, just as people who dismiss myth and ritual generally fail to understand the ways in which such things give coherence to a group.
At any rate, I have no serious criticism of a claim that the texts were selected by “popular” referenda. My objection is only to the historically inaccurate claim that cabals of “leaders” gathered in conspiracy to shape the texts against the wills of their “followers” or that such selection was a late effort to exclude other widely held beliefs. The evidence is pretty consistent that the texts selected for the canon were those approved by the overwhelming majority of members of the community over many years, reflecting widely held beliefs in common. Gnosticism, for example, had its own historical arc and, while it intersected with Christianity for a while, the evidence indicates that it entered and paralleled Christianity after Christianity had already been established; it did not give rise to Christianity.
I think you underestimate the powerstruggle that is behind this selection process.
The Gnostics are ‘just a sect’ exactly because the installation of this canon. It’s not about ‘leaders against the will of their followers’ but leaders against leaders. Or rather who is going to be leader of that club called Christianity, in which up to now all had their say. The organisation of christianity is still a reasonably local affair. Views differ per locality and power groups. There are many churches.
This is very much about power, about who’s church is going to be top dog, who is going to be the church. Who’s church is going to bag the cushy jobs once the monolith is in place.
Right. For 250 years they fought over who got the best cave in the catacombs and then they suddenly got together to decide who would live in the Vatican.
There is no historical basis for such an assumption. If you want to posit that there was a struggle for ideological supremacy, that’s fine, but the evidence still indicates that the ideas that made it to the top of the heap were always the more mainstream ideas. We have records of the actual fights that went on, from Paul through Irenaeus through Origen and John Chrysostom, all the way up to Augustine and beyond. Even if we only have the “winners’” versions, we have enough information to know that they were always the larger group within the overall community.
Not the Vatican pers se ( and the bishop of Rome wasn’t headmaster yet), any function or position of import within the church of your city now began to become dependant on what the soon to be official doctrine would be.
After 250 years ‘in the catacombs’ this mistery cult is suddenly becoming the state religion. That is a big leap. These people are in the process of replacing the old stablished priesthoods. Sponsered by the state no less.
This is not just an academic debate, ‘wise men discussing what they believe’, peoples jobs and reputation are at stake. So yes, from pretty early on ‘wise men’ would choose sides with those most likely to win. Marginalising ‘dissenting voices’ and creating a majority party.
My silly claims come from the history of the council of Nicene, and the Nicene Creed’ I have talked with several priests and they admitted that the church wasn’t truly united until later on. It was mostly the Bishops and Orthodox that met in Nicene to evaluate the writings and There were several branches of Christianity. They went by the succession of Peter, but couldn’t prove that Jesus made Peter head of his church, but believed he did. And the monks were indeed the educated men who translated the Scriptures.
Since we can prove that all Scripture was written by a human and called the word of God is the word of a human, God didn’t write anything, and even God itself is a matter of belief, we are taking the word of another human of what God has said , wants or did, until we have proof it is just a belief in another human.
If one truly believes that it was written by God that h=is his right to believe as he wishes, Jesus didn’t write anything except in the sand, and no one knows what that was. There are so many contradictions in the Scriptures it is hard to say what is truth and what is not. Of course the RCC decided they were the true translations, Peter was God’s voice on Earth. Paul didn’t see to accept this,He differed with Peter on some issues.
As a post script:a priest who knew less about the Bible than I did, said they went more by tradition that the successor to Peter who was inspired by God and the Church followed what he believed was inspired by God to do, that he had the right to decide what was now how RCs should accept, because Jesus gave Peter the power to Bind or Loose, and it would be accepted in Heaven!
I have read the Bible through at least 24 times in my life, and it wasn’t until I thought about what I was reading that I realized there was a lot of contradictions.
And why only 3 apostles writings were included, is another thing that doesn’t make sense to me, and further writings were found many years after the NT was said to be complete.
I have no quarrel with people who wish to believe as they do, but belief is not fact, and if one seeks the truth, then that is a different matter. But in My understanding there is no proof that God wanted any Church etc. Humans use what helps them. The adage" you will know the truth and the truth will set you free, is one way of looking at using one’s own mind, not that anyone ever has all the truth.
I have to remember to be less facetious in these discussions. In reality, the church was only sporadically oppressed in its first 300 years, (the most rigorous and widest persecution occurring just a few years prior to the Council of Nicaea as a reaction against the disharmony that the growing Christian movement was causing throughout the empire), and most of the theological disputes were carried out in public. However, it was 65 years after Nicaea, with the Edict of Thessalonica, that Christianity was actually made the official religion of the empire, so it is a bit of a stretch to assign such a power play to the bishops at Nicaea.
However, as I already pointed out, the discussions were ongoing throughout the entire several centuries. Trying to make a big deal of the new power of the church in the context of discussions that had gone on for a long time before there was any such power is anachronistic and inaccurate.
And?
I have not made any claim that there was no struggle over whose views would “win.”
My objection is to the false claim that there were multiple variations of Christianity that had equal support throughout the Roman Empire, only to be crushed and silenced at Nicaea. That did not happen. Heck, the one difference of opinion that was actually “settled” at Nicaea continued to smolder for nearly 70 years after the declaration of that council, (and continued for nearly 500 more years to pop up in lands where missionaries had preached before it was suppressed). The struggles over belief occurred throughout the entire history of the church. They were documented at the time they occurred. Clearly, the “winners” got to write the texts and describe the arguments of the “losers,” but there is ample evidence for how the disputes occurred and how they were resolved without pretending that they were all obliterated by the bishops at Nicaea or that there were many separate Christianities silenced at the Nicene Council.
What is this “Bishops and Orthodox” claim? If you are claiming that the “orthodox” views of Christianity won out, that is tautological. Orthodox means correct teaching and whoever won out in the numerous disputes became the orthodox by definition. If you mean (Eastern) “Orthodox” in contrast to (Western) Catholic with battles over the authority of the pope, then you are talking about a conflict and schism that did not even arise until several hundred years after Nicaea.
As to the church being “one,” there have always been conflicting views regarding all manner of beliefs both before and after Nicaea. You appear to wish to have an argument with some other person than me even though you are quoting me when you post.
I originally pointed out that your claim was erroneous that the church set the canon at Nicaea, throwing out lots of other texts in the process. I have made no claim that there has not been conflict within the church or that there has never been suppression of heterodox views.
Which is fine, but is different from your original erroneous claim that we had “proven” the opposite.
What is your proof that it wasn’t a Human or humans, that decided what was or wasn’t of God. It surely is an accepted fact that it was humans (just like a couple on this board, and Muhammad) , that made claims that God directed or directs them personally. Why is the Bible more the word of God than the Koran(or any writing for that matter)?
The Idea of Catholic( universal) Church came about during Constantine’s time, and was recorded in the Nicene Creed. I have never in all my years of searching found anything earlier in the History of the RCC. I have relatives who would or should know, but I also worked for priests who couldn’t answer. One said he went by the tradition, that The church was the voice of God on earth.
Do you have some sort of imperative to throw up straw man arguments?
I have made no claim that God had any hand in the writing of any scripture.
My sole statement on that topic was to point out that your claim that the absence of God had been proven was not factual. Regardless whether God wrote scripture, God inspired scripture, God had nothing to do with scripture, or God does not exist, your claim was
and it is simply not a fact that any such thing has been proven, even if it is true.
Do you mean that the Gospel writers, Moses, etc. were not human beings? I believe that is a proven fact. and they are the one’s who wrote the writings attributed to God or God’s inspiration. Of course Historians have grave doubts that Moses existed, because there is no Historical proof except from the OT. If indeed he existed then he was a human.
Why would Mohammad’s Book be any less of God(dictated to him by an Angel) have less credit that the many Authors of the OT or even the NT?
Because someone said God wrote on a stone to Moses and gave the 10 commandments doesn’t prove it was a fact. I have read that there was many more commandments than People now claim.
Why would a God who made the commandment Not to kill then tell Joshua to go to a city and Kill all the people there to get some land…was land more important to this God than the other Children that were also suppose to be His?
I don’t fault your belief, and I in trying to look for truth in belief, find very little, as far as the Books and etc. about a God doesn’t ring true. I see the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic, God , as cruel, unfair , surely not a good father, and if all knowing he wanted people to suffer or believe in something with out question, why would he want people to lack the knowledge of good and evil then punish them with death, because they wanted to know? Does a good parent kill its child because it wants to know the truth?
As a post script: There is no evidence at all that anything was written or inspired by a supreme being, but there is the proof that Humans wrote and said it was God’s word. Can you prove that is not true?
I think you are arguing a point that tomndebb has not made -
He (and others) may believe that the works are ‘divinely inspired’ - but he has not argued that they are - he has agreed that the works were written ‘by men’ and the works themselves (in places anyway) have the authors claiming that God inspired them or that the works on whole are “inspired”.
There is still much discrepancy on who the ‘actual physical’ authors were - but there is also much agreement on who we think they were - and its also clear that many of the books are ‘mashups’ of several authors.
So, outside of that - I am not sure what point you are trying to make -
The point I was trying to make earlier is that I find it interesting (moreso perhaps) - what was specifically left out - and is still disregarded - even tho we have more evidence that the author was a ‘direct’ witness (Thomas) - and I feel that his works are left out based on the fact (today, at least) that they raise more questions than answers as to what really went on 2000 years ago. And we now reject them more out of tradition than anything.