Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

NT canon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NT canon

    I stumbled upon this page in the middle of a discussion at another site.

    I'd like to hear opinions.

    Two things in particular caught my eye, and seem contrary to what I've read from various scholars:

    -- The part about the books of Romans and Hebrews being side-by-side in that codex or whatever; in the absence of further info (which the author does not provide), this suggests that the "old" view that Paul wrote Hebrews is correct.

    -- The part where all four Gospels were always bound together, and the related part downplaying the idea of different "communities." We often hear ideas along the lines that the various NT authors *primarily* wrote to their own communities (i.e. the churches they and their associates founded and oversaw).
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

  • #2
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    I stumbled upon this page in the middle of a discussion at another site.

    I'd like to hear opinions.

    Two things in particular caught my eye, and seem contrary to what I've read from various scholars:

    -- The part about the books of Romans and Hebrews being side-by-side in that codex or whatever; in the absence of further info (which the author does not provide), this suggests that the "old" view that Paul wrote Hebrews is correct.

    -- The part where all four Gospels were always bound together, and the related part downplaying the idea of different "communities." We often hear ideas along the lines that the various NT authors *primarily* wrote to their own communities (i.e. the churches they and their associates founded and oversaw).
    This source affirms the relevant contents of P46. I'm not sure how much that suggests that Paul wrote Hebrews, however; we don't know if it was part of the original collection or added to the beginning later. 2 Peter certainly suggests that Paul's letters were circulating very early, likely as a unit.

    He doesn't say that the four Gospels were always bound together, but that it had become the norm by the time of Irenaeus (late 2nd century). The "community" idea is a late modern one, AFAICT; we "often" hear of it because it became very popular in critical scholarship. I recall that at least some of the early papyrus gospels can be demonstrated to have included multiple gospels in the collection, and all of them IIRC were from codices (which means it's unlikely that the gospel in question was by itself).
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      One thing that was unexpected in my studies was that Paul's writings seemed to be shared as a complete collection. It was as if Paul (or someone on his behalf) kept a copy of each letter and then the set was copied as a collection for other people.

      Hebrews is more of a mystery. I didn't see anything about Hebrews always appearing in the collection of Pauline letters.

      Comment


      • #4
        In this post a few months later, he affirms Hebrews as part of the Pauline corpus, but does not elaborate. I'm still looking to see if he ever did address that "subject for another time," or however he phrased it.
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          I stumbled upon this page in the middle of a discussion at another site.

          I'd like to hear opinions.

          Two things in particular caught my eye, and seem contrary to what I've read from various scholars:

          -- The part about the books of Romans and Hebrews being side-by-side in that codex or whatever; in the absence of further info (which the author does not provide), this suggests that the "old" view that Paul wrote Hebrews is correct.
          If a scholar as conservative as Daniel Wallace is willing to state that the arguments against Paul writing Hebrews "are conclusive" I'm inclined to accept him at his word.

          For that matter, depending on what you mean by old, the "old" view is not really that Paul wrote Hebrews. The early church was divided on the subject--especially when one considers the regular Pauline epistles (including Pastorals) seemed to be unanimously affirmed as written by Paul. But with Hebrews--and Hebrews alone--you have disputes, with even some of those who asserted Paul wrote Hebrews admitting that its authorship (though not necessarily its status as scripture) was disputed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
            If a scholar as conservative as Daniel Wallace is willing to state that the arguments against Paul writing Hebrews "are conclusive" I'm inclined to accept him at his word.

            For that matter, depending on what you mean by old, the "old" view is not really that Paul wrote Hebrews. The early church was divided on the subject--especially when one considers the regular Pauline epistles (including Pastorals) seemed to be unanimously affirmed as written by Paul. But with Hebrews--and Hebrews alone--you have disputes, with even some of those who asserted Paul wrote Hebrews admitting that its authorship (though not necessarily its status as scripture) was disputed.
            By "old" I was referring to those Bibles that title the book, "The Letter of Paul to the Hebrews," or something like that. I vaguely recall that some included his name as part of the title. But I haven't used one of those in ages.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              By "old" I was referring to those Bibles that title the book, "The Letter of Paul to the Hebrews," or something like that. I vaguely recall that some included his name as part of the title. But I haven't used one of those in ages.
              In the West, Hebrews was looked at skeptically because its author was unknown. In the East, it was generally attributed to Paul and accepted. Lectionary MSS tend to bear that out, since in early times Paul's letters tended to circulate as a unit (as did the gospels and the general epistles). The only book routinely excluded from Eastern lectionaries is Revelation, which was not generally accepted as canonical until the pattern of lections was already firmly fixed.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                In the West, Hebrews was looked at skeptically because its author was unknown. In the East, it was generally attributed to Paul and accepted. Lectionary MSS tend to bear that out, since in early times Paul's letters tended to circulate as a unit (as did the gospels and the general epistles). The only book routinely excluded from Eastern lectionaries is Revelation, which was not generally accepted as canonical until the pattern of lections was already firmly fixed.
                My understanding is that:

                the West accepted the canonicity of Rev, but disputed that of Heb;
                and that the East accepted the canonicity of Heb, but had doubts about Rev;
                and that they swapped each other’s ideas on the canonical status of the books, so that East and West (except for the Syriac canon) both ended with the (now long traditional) 27-book NT canon.

                The ascription of Hebrews to Barnabas is attractive - maybe awareness of his collaboration with St Paul is the source of its ascription to the more prominent Apostle.

                Rev had to live down being ascribed to Cerinthus, as well as caginess about millennarianism.

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                35 responses
                166 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Cow Poke  
                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                4 responses
                49 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                10 responses
                119 views
                1 like
                Last Post mikewhitney  
                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                14 responses
                71 views
                3 likes
                Last Post Cow Poke  
                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                13 responses
                59 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Cow Poke  
                Working...
                X