Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They picked the ones that were thought to be closest to the original followers of Jesus and the ones that agreed with the doctrines and traditions they had built up. Simple.
Following the Spirit? Not so much, but still discernable to those open to it.
Of course the early Fathers of the church, particularly those present when the canon was being decided upon, followed the spirit. How else could they have determined what was closest to what the apostles had taught and what wasn't, what had come from eyewitnesses and what hadn't?
Tradition, oral tradition first, preserved everything we have today. That is inescapable historical fact.
OK, here is a question for you: How did the Christians of that era selected which books belonged to the Canon of the NT?
Can you answer that simple question?
God's spirit.
It took time for some because of the time lapse between when written and then circulated to the various congregations. The basic canon we have today was in existence shortly after the 1st century, it was "Officially Canonized" much later but that was unnecessary as the books were already known and used. That is how the early "Fathers" could quote from them. Known and used then. The later "Church" just claims credit for it to boost their position. History shows otherwise.
Of course the early Fathers of the church, particularly those present when the canon was being decided upon, followed the spirit. How else could they have determined what was closest to what the apostles had taught and what wasn't, what had come from eyewitnesses and what hadn't?
Tradition, oral tradition first, preserved everything we have today. That is inescapable historical fact.
What oral tradition?
Tradition is man made, the gospels and epistles were God inspired. No tradition as they were written when eye witnesses were still around so not tradition at all. Repeating what someone said is not tradition.
How did the Christians that lived in the first four centuries AD selected the books for the New testament?
I can understand why you refuse to answer, but you should try.
They were known and used long before the 4th century. Those in the 2nd and 3rd and 4 th centuries knew because those before them identified them as such. The early "fathers" in the 1st and 2nd century were quoting from them, so they were already established as written.
Tradition is man made, the gospels and epistles were God inspired. No tradition as they were written when eye witnesses were still around so not tradition at all. Repeating what someone said is not tradition.
Actually it is, if that's how information and culture is passed from one generation to the next, then that is tradition.
For example, my grandmother learned from her mother to make peanut butter fudge, then she taught me, and I will teach my daughter, and hopefully she'll teach her daughter, and so on and in three or four more generations, the family recipe will pretty much unchanged since the early 1900s. It's not written, we learn by oral explanation and by doing it ourselves alongside the elders.
One of the Epistles even states, quite plainly that not everything St. Paul and his companion taught to the Church in Thessalonica was written down, that some of it was taught orally.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thessalonians 2:15)
Christ himself didn't write a memoir, or an autobiography, He taught EVERYTHING orally. I don't doubt that the biblical text is inspired but you also have to admit that these things were taught orally first, it was, and any biblical scholar would tell you this, anywhere from 20 to 100 years before any of this was written down
They were known and used long before the 4th century. Those in the 2nd and 3rd and 4 th centuries knew because those before them identified them as such. The early "fathers" in the 1st and 2nd century were quoting from them, so they were already established as written.
There were many more gospels than the four ones on the NT. There was some consensus as to what was right. Many writings were rejected. How did they know which writings to reject and which ones to keep? How did the early fathers knew which books to quote from? Can you explain how they knew all these things?
Of course the early Fathers of the church, particularly those present when the canon was being decided upon, followed the spirit. How else could they have determined what was closest to what the apostles had taught and what wasn't, what had come from eyewitnesses and what hadn't?
Tradition, oral tradition first, preserved everything we have today. That is inescapable historical fact.
If they had done unquestionably good work, you would have a point. They didn't.
Actually it is, if that's how information and culture is passed from one generation to the next, then that is tradition.
For example, my grandmother learned from her mother to make peanut butter fudge, then she taught me, and I will teach my daughter, and hopefully she'll teach her daughter, and so on and in three or four more generations, the family recipe will pretty much unchanged since the early 1900s. It's not written, we learn by oral explanation and by doing it ourselves alongside the elders.
One of the Epistles even states, quite plainly that not everything St. Paul and his companion taught to the Church in Thessalonica was written down, that some of it was taught orally.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thessalonians 2:15)
Christ himself didn't write a memoir, or an autobiography, He taught EVERYTHING orally. I don't doubt that the biblical text is inspired but you also have to admit that these things were taught orally first, it was, and any biblical scholar would tell you this, anywhere from 20 to 100 years before any of this was written down
They were known and used long before the 4th century. Those in the 2nd and 3rd and 4 th centuries knew because those before them identified them as such.
Actually it is, if that's how information and culture is passed from one generation to the next, then that is tradition.
For example, my grandmother learned from her mother to make peanut butter fudge, then she taught me, and I will teach my daughter, and hopefully she'll teach her daughter, and so on and in three or four more generations, the family recipe will pretty much unchanged since the early 1900s. It's not written, we learn by oral explanation and by doing it ourselves alongside the elders.
One of the Epistles even states, quite plainly that not everything St. Paul and his companion taught to the Church in Thessalonica was written down, that some of it was taught orally.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thessalonians 2:15)
Christ himself didn't write a memoir, or an autobiography, He taught EVERYTHING orally. I don't doubt that the biblical text is inspired but you also have to admit that these things were taught orally first, it was, and any biblical scholar would tell you this, anywhere from 20 to 100 years before any of this was written down
Yes, such things are tradition and by Paul speaking of written and oral he showed the difference. ONLY the written was accepted ad inspired. The oral was not.
Jesus wrote nothing we have today, but the Gospels were written by eye witnesses to his words, so not tradition but a written account. Yes Matthew probably didn't write a thing down at first. I am sure there were various stories/oral traditions around, BUT what the Scriptures contain is inspired thus the actual words said and those that were recorded.
The idea of tradition being important is to give credence to other men who want equality fo authority to the apostles (and Jesus) and followers. They claim THEIR acceptance is need based on ..... their traditions. A circular argument.
The leaders of the Jews did the same and eventually favored their traditions as equal to and at times even over Scripture and ... Jesus condemned that.
History repeats itself as religious leaders for centuries AFTER the Apostles, claim the same authority.
They do not have such.
The words about traditions of man and their rejection by Jesus, were recorded for a warning to us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
