How Christians know that the Christianity of the New Testament is the correct form or not

[skepticbud]

I have a slightly different spin on this subject.

I would like to ask the Christians here a question:

"How do you know that the particular version of Christianity that came to be included in the New Testament canon, was the correct form of Christianity?"

Do you have something more to prove your belief, other than the great inconvenience it would cause you to look up all those writings by apostle Paul's opponents?

For example, apostle Paul opposed those other judaizer Christians who said you get saved through good works.

How do you know which (paul or the Judaizers) were right?

As a skeptic and atheist, I cannot pontificate and say with authority whether ANY character from church history had true doctrine or not, but you Christians here at this apologetics debate site give the appearence of being able to justify WHY you believe WHAT you believe.

skepticbud

[jpholding]

Yo,

"How do you know that the particular version of Christianity that came to be included in the New Testament canon, was the correct form of Christianity?"

The determination of this has come about via careful study of the proposed alternatives. Process of elimination is accomplished via certain means:

1) Is the alternative early enough to be a viable candidate? This has eliminated such variations as the Ebionites, who do not show any indication of existing prior to 150 AD.

2) Does the alterentive make sense as something that would begin in a Jewish, Palestinian setting? This has eliminated such variations as Gnosticism.

3) Did the alternative begin in Palestine, and thus could it have begun under Jesus? This has eliminated the Judaizers you probably refer to, who were local to Galatia (and who were also probably actually Jews, not Christians, but that is another story).

Of course if you want to press endless panic buttons, you can speculate that all sorts of documents were burned, lost, etc and that maybe Jesus was a Neptunian who taught that eating eggs was the way to salvation. But don't expect any of us to be moved by that.

[Robyn Banks]

Skepticbud:
"How do you know that the particular version of Christianity that came to be included in the New Testament canon, was the correct form of Christianity?"

jpholding:
The determination of this has come about via careful study of the proposed alternatives.

The "determination" was made by the assertion that one Christianity is right, and others are wrong. The basis for this assertion was the mutual grounds of apostolic creeds, apostolic succession, and apostolic writings. 'Apostolic' is again an assertion. The argument for a canon is ultimately circular. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The determination of the nature of 'Christianity' was not made by "careful study of the proposed alternatives" but by the rejection of the actual alternatives by catholic Christians.

jpholding:
Process of elimination is accomplished via certain means:

"Process of elimination" is accomplished by many means, all of them mere assertions.

jpholding:
1 Is the alternative early enough to be a viable candidate? This has eliminated such variations as the Ebionites, who do not show any indication of existing prior to 150 AD.

Jewish Christianities existed at the same time as Pauline Christianity. This is apparent from Acts and Galatians. 'Ebionites' would only be so-called when they needed to be distinguished from the largely Gentile Pauline Christianity of post-AD70-80.

At the other end of the scale, docetic Christianity - which 'over'-emphasised Christ's divine nature - also existed from early times.

jpholding:
2) Does the alterentive make sense as something that would begin in a Jewish, Palestinian setting? This has eliminated such variations as Gnosticism.

Nonsense. The possibility of the existence of a pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism has long been defended by scholars. First century pre-Rabbinic Judaism was diverse enough to cater for many divergent variations. The assumption of a great divide between diasporic Judaism and Palestinian Judaism is not warranted.

jpholding:
3) Did the alternative begin in Palestine, and thus could it have begun under Jesus? This has eliminated the Judaizers you probably refer to, who were local to Galatia

James is located in Jurusalem. He was the first head of Christianity after Jesus.

jpholding:
(and who were also probably actually Jews, not Christians, but that is another story).

That is a 'story'. In addition to 'Judaizers', there were Christians who retained the practices of the Law, as against Paul's spiritualizing of the Law. This is the basis for the conflict in Acts/Galatians.

jpholding:
Of course if you want to press endless panic buttons, you can speculate that all sorts of documents were burned, lost, etc

All sorts of documents were burned and lost, etc. In the early fifth century Cathaolic Christians burnt down the great library in Alexandria, destroying over 1,000,000 volumes. Athanasius' witch-hunts probably resulted in the burying of the library at Nag Hammadi, which contains the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is dated abut 20 years later than the latest canonical Gospel, and is considered by many scholars to contain very early first century Jesus-traditions.

The Church was the only preserver of ancient documents in Christendom for over 1,000 years.

jpholding:
and that maybe Jesus was a Neptunian who taught that eating eggs was the way to salvation. But don't expect any of us to be moved by that.

There are many more feasible options, including the types of Christianities that I referred to above, without resulting to the more wild speculations.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Hitch]

Its called presuppositionalism. Look it up.

[The Laughing Man]

In the early fifth century Cathaolic Christians burnt down the great library in Alexandria, destroying over 1,000,000 volumes.

From http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html:

"You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won't notice." [Currently #50.]

Hee hee hee!

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:43 AM post located here
Jinx72:
From http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html:

"You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won't notice." [Currently #50.]

Hee hee hee!

Who did burn down the Alexandrian library? I seem to remember reading (in a secular source) that it was the Christians, but I'm willing to hear why it's 'impossible'.

EDIT: A google search shows that many people seem to think that Christian fanatics severely damaged the collection in AD 391, but that Islamic fanatics finally destroyed the library.

Paul

[wienerdog]

Just a quick response: no, scholars do not think there was a pre-Christian Jewish "gnosticism," as that term is usually understood. Gnosticism arose in the 2nd century AD at the earliest.

The gospel of Thomas is dated by most scholars to the mid-2nd century AD as well. Those who have tried to place it earlier than this offer no evidence for such a claim. They simply assert it.

The "witch-hunts" have been greatly exaggerated. Those that did take place were almost always done by provincialities, and didn't have any connection to any official church. Read Six Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization.

[Woman]

Jinx:

You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won't notice.

From http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html:

I had never heard that Christians were solely responsible for burning the library at Alexandria, but I was curious who actually did. Silly me, I read Jinx's response and thought he was referring to a source for facts. I didn't realized it was just a site with "you may be a fundy atheist if..." jokes. Not that I don't like J.F.'s comedy, but you guys need to at least stay current so there is some humor in such things. To my knowlege the only people who think that there is a theory thay man descended from apes...is creationists.

[Robyn Banks]

wienerdog:
Just a quick response: no, scholars do not think there was a pre-Christian Jewish "gnosticism," as that term is usually understood.

If you are merely making the distinction between 'gnosis' and 'Gnostic', then your objection is trivial. Sure, Gnosticism defined as the Valentinian system and its variants is a mid-2nd century phenomenon. Yet the question of earlier Jewish gnostikos is still moot. Ierenaeus traces the gnostics back to Simon, remember.

wienerdog:
Gnosticism arose in the 2nd century AD at the earliest.

This is a definition game. 'Christianity' arose in the 2nd century AD at the earliest, if it means proto-Catholic Christianity.

wienerdog:
The gospel of Thomas is dated by most scholars to the mid-2nd century AD as well.

AD120 usually. That is not 'mid-2nd century', but early 2nd-century.

And I noted that it was only the traditions it contains which were first century. Likewise, Matthew and Luke, written in the ninth decade of the first century, contain much earlier traditions.

wienerdog:
Those who have tried to place it earlier than this offer no evidence for such a claim. They simply assert it.

Nonsense. Dating of early Christian scriptures is based on internal and external evidence. This is an inductive process, and never certain. But it is patently incorrect to state it is a mere 'assertion'.

wienerdog:
The "witch-hunts" have been greatly exaggerated. Those that did take place were almost always done by provincialities, and didn't have any connection to any official church. Read Six Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization.

I was talking about Athanasius' fourth-century suppression of non-Catholic texts. You misread me over-literally.

Robyn

[jpholding]

Here comes Red Robyn again, pretending to be an expert cuz he read a cereal box --

BTW Robyn, I composed a new page for the tektonics.com parody. http://www.tektonics.org/combomb2.html -- isn't it lovely?

To business:

The "determination" was made by the assertion that one Christianity is right, and others are wrong. The basis for this assertion was the mutual grounds of apostolic creeds, apostolic succession, and apostolic writings. Blah blah blah

Your usual non-documented vague assertions. Not a fact to be found here.

The determination of the nature of 'Christianity' was not made by "careful study of the proposed alternatives" but by the rejection of the actual alternatives by catholic Christians.

Moreblah blah blah unsubstantiated by anyone but the badly outdated Bauer hypothesis.

Jewish Christianities existed at the same time as Pauline Christianity. This is apparent from Acts and Galatians.

You have a smattering of Pharisees in Acts, and Judaizers in Galatians who may not have even been Christians (Nanos, Irony of Galatians) and were local to Galatia, not Palestine where the movement started.

At the other end of the scale, docetic Christianity - which 'over'-emphasised Christ's divine nature - also existed from early times.

No earlier than the end of the first century. Not early enough.

Nonsense. The possibility of the existence of a pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism has long been defended by scholars.

Which also rules it out as a viable alternative. It is obviously parasitic.

James is located in Jurusalem. He was the first head of Christianity after Jesus.

And, what?

This is the basis for the conflict in Acts/Galatians.

Which clearly show the dissenters to be in a minority, which was soundly defeated. You can't just pick and choose what parts you want to believe.

In the early fifth century Cathaolic Christians burnt down the great library in Alexandria, destroying over 1,000,000 volumes.

Already answered by others.

Athanasius' witch-hunts probably resulted in the burying of the library at Nag Hammadi, which contains the Gospel of Thomas.

Slanderous and baseless speculation, which of course is the best you can do.

The Gospel of Thomas is dated abut 20 years later than the latest canonical Gospel

No earlier than 150 AD.

and is considered by many scholars to contain very early first century Jesus-traditions.

Stevan Davies, Stephen Patterson, and a few Jesus seminarites. That's not "many" by any stretch. Want me to boot you around a bit on GThom?

The Church was the only preserver of ancient documents in Christendom for over 1,000 years.

Hints of conspiracy are the suggestion of the desperate with no facts to back up their arguments.

Hope that helps.

It would help more if you got an education that was not so selective.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 01:07 AM post located here
jpholding:

1) Is the alternative early enough to be a viable candidate? This has eliminated such variations as the Ebionites, who do not show any indication of existing prior to 150 AD.

Is Acts 15 and Galations 1:6-9 early enough?

2) Does the alterentive make sense as something that would begin in a Jewish, Palestinian setting? This has eliminated such variations as Gnosticism.

Still doesn't eliminate apostle Paul's early first century opponents which he mentioned often.

3) Did the alternative begin in Palestine, and thus could it have begun under Jesus? This has eliminated the Judaizers you probably refer to, who were local to Galatia (and who were also probably actually Jews, not Christians, but that is another story).

Don't you find it suspicious that your criteria just happens to be the kind that your New Testament can fulfill? Who the heck are you to say that Christianity should have started in any location within 700 miles around Palestine?

First, just because Paul develops anti-judaizer polemic more thoroughly in Galations than in other passages, doesn't mean that the Judaizers were limited in the slightest degree to the general area of Galatia.

Second, who exactly were the recipients of the book of Galations and thus where they lived remains in doubt among scholars, whether they are northerners or southerners, the former being a locale, the latter being merely of Gallic descent.

Third, Acts 15, which is specifically about judaizers mingling the law with grace, was the council at Jerusalem, and it was men that "came down from Judea to Antioch" who started the legalism which then prompted the apostolic response (Acts 15:1) Antioch is sufficiently removed from Galatia to remove your own objection from consideration;, there were Judaizers everywhere, and they were sufficiently local.

Fourth, apostle Paul issued many warnings to his churches that they should not listen to this and that preacher or heresy. Why? If the heretics were far enough removed from Paul's churches, they would have no real influence. Paul's warnings only make sense if we assume there were other very LOCAL preachers who preached those heresies, who would most certainly be heard by Paul's followers. Therefore the heretics have so far fulfilled your criteria.

Of course if you want to press endless panic buttons, you can speculate that all sorts of documents were burned, lost, etc and that maybe Jesus was a Neptunian who taught that eating eggs was the way to salvation. But don't expect any of us to be moved by that.

First, I don't even expect you to be moved by facts, evidence, U-Haul, indeed anything. But speak for yourself. I'm asking critical questions and you are going to have to hone to perfection your ability to drown serious academic discussion in witty invective so deep that the original points are lost on the glazed faces of your followers who use the "he-was-more-funny-so-he-must-have-won-the-debate" criteria. Book Burning was as early as Acts 19, all the way back to the time of Paul, and there's plenty of evidence that book-burning was the way the "orthodox" removed the influence of "heresy" after that time. I will supply it in my next post if you act like you never read church history in your life and ask me to "prove" this point.

But anyway, your criteria above provide no reason to expunge everybody except of course conveniently for those exact authors that just happened to have their writings included in a new testament. By your standards so far, the Judaizers do not appear to be "wrong" and the New Testament "right".

You will have to first settle the scholarly debate of who exactly the recipients of the book of Galations were, before you can presuppose their identity and location within your larger argument that says Galatia, being far removed from Palestine, is where the heretics were.

Hell, I could press the point and say that your criteria above do nothing to eliminate ANY "heretic" or opponent of Paul. Almost all of Paul's writings contain warnings that his readers should not listen to various heretics. He wouldn't warn them if the heretics weren't local enough to be influential. You only warn against heretics because you assume your readers will certainly encounter them.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here
jpholding:

In the early fifth century Cathaolic Christians burnt down the great library in Alexandria, destroying over 1,000,000 volumes.

Already answered by others.

No decent answer has been given to this. Christian fanatics did destroy a very large part of the Library of Alexandrea in the late forth century.

All that has been given in evidence from Christian quarters is a joke from an apologetics Website.

Paul

[AtheistArchon]

- History points towards three different versions of the destruction of the great library at Alexandria.

- One tale says that Julius Caesar burned it by accident whilst pursuing Pompey into Egypt (by setting fire to an Egyptian fleet moored in a nearby harbor). But the evidence for this is scant:

The first person blamed for the destruction of the Library is none other than Julius Caesar himself. In 48 BC, Caesar was pursuing Pompey into Egypt when he was suddenly cut off by an Egyptian fleet at Alexandria. Greatly outnumbered and in enemy territory, Caesar ordered the ships in the harbor to be set on fire. The fire spread and destroyed the Egyptian fleet. Unfortunately, it also burned down part of the city - the area where the great Library stood. Caesar wrote of starting the fire in the harbor but neglected to mention the burning of the Library. Such an omission proves little since he was not in the habit of including unflattering facts while writing his own history. But Caesar was not without public detractors. If he was solely to blame for the disappearance of the Library it is very likely significant documentation on the affair would exist today.

- Another says that the Muslim Caliph Omar burned it in about 640 AD:

The final individual to get blamed for the destruction is the Moslem Caliph Omar. In 640 AD the Moslems took the city of Alexandria. Upon learning of "a great library containing all the knowledge of the world" the conquering general supposedly asked Caliph Omar for instructions. The Caliph has been quoted as saying of the Library's holdings, "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." So, allegedly, all the texts were destroyed by using them as tinder for the bathhouses of the city. Even then it was said to have taken six months to burn all the documents. But these details, from the Caliph's quote to the incredulous six months it supposedly took to burn all the books, weren't written down until 300 years after the fact. These facts condemning Omar were written by Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus, a Christian who spent a great deal of time writing about Moslem atrocities without much historical documentation.

- And of course, there's the one blaming Christians:

The second story of the Library's destruction is more popular, thanks primarily to Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". But the story is also a tad more complex. Theopholis was Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD. During his reign the Temple of Serapis was converted into a Christian Church (probably around 391 AD) and it is likely that many documents were destroyed then. The Temple of Serapis was estimated to hold about ten percent of the overall Library of Alexandria's holdings. After his death, his nephew Cyril became Patriarch. Shortly after that, riots broke out when Hierax, a Christian monk, was publicly killed by order of Orestes the city Prefect. Orestes was said to be under the influence of Hypatia, a female philosopher and daughter of the "last member of the Library of Alexandria". Although it should be noted that some count Hypatia herself as the last Head Librarian.

Alexandria had long been known for it's violent and volatile politics. Christians, Jews and Pagans all lived together in the city. One ancient writer claimed that there was no people who loved a fight more than those of Alexandria. Immediately after the death of Hierax a group of Jews who had helped instigate his killing lured more Christians into the street at night by proclaiming that the Church was on fire. When the Christians rushed out the largely Jewish mob slew many of them. After this there was mass havoc as Christians retaliated against both the Jews and the Pagans - one of which was Hypatia. The story varies slightly depending upon who tells it but she was taken by the Christians, dragged through the streets and murdered.

Some regard the death of Hypatia as the final destruction of the Library. Others blame Theopholis for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a Christian church. Still others have confused both incidents and blamed Theopholis for simultaneously murdering Hypatia and destroying the Library though it is obvious Theopholis died sometime prior to Hypatia.

- Whether or not the burning of the library was actually done by Christians, there's little dispute that they were the ones who murdered Hypatia (the head librarian), flaying her alive with abalone shells: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:12 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:
... there's little dispute that they were the ones who murdered Hypatia (the head librarian), flaying her alive with abalone shells

Feel the love.

Paul

[jpholding]

In rides Bud, the glow of Miller Lite in his eyes,

Don't you find it suspicious that your criteria just happens to be the kind that your New Testament can fulfill?

I find it more suspicious that you are not producing 9and did not produce to begin with) any tests to tell us how to discern an original movement from a derivative one, and instead just throw back a load of “how do you know” Oscar Mayer that doesn’t answer the arguments or give us any justification for thinking we got the "wrong Christianity" in the first place. Have you given your Aunt Hattie respect yet?

Who the heck are you to say that Christianity should have started in any location within 700 miles around Palestine?

It’s verified by Tacitus and by Josephus as well as the NT. If you think it started elsewhere, tell us why these are wrong and explain why. Just throwing up a list of derivative movements and yelling, “How do you know???” is not sufficient.

First, just because Paul develops anti-judaizer polemic more thoroughly in Galations than in other passages, doesn't mean that the Judaizers were limited in the slightest degree to the general area of Galatia.

True, they could have been in China, Japan, Zimbabwe, etc. In short, you are now molding your theory to fit the available data.

Second, who exactly were the recipients of the book of Galations and thus where they lived remains in doubt among scholars, whether they are northerners or southerners, the former being a locale, the latter being merely of Gallic descent.

In any event you are still limited to a very small region, which still spells doom for your case. Nice try at a distraction, but it is irrelevant.

Third, Acts 15, which is specifically about judaizers mingling the law with grace, was the council at Jerusalem, and it was men that "came down from Judea to Antioch" who started the legalism which then prompted the apostolic response (Acts 15:1) Antioch is sufficiently removed from Galatia to remove your own objection from consideration;, there were Judaizers everywhere, and they were sufficiently local.

Um. So you have them at Galatia, and one other place, and that puts them “everywhere”. Haven’t I told you a million times not to exaggerate?

Fourth, apostle Paul issued many warnings to his churches that they should not listen to this and that preacher or heresy. Why? If the heretics were far enough removed from Paul's churches, they would have no real influence.

hello? That’s not at issue. What we’re discussing here is how any of these could represent an “original” Christianity as opposed to a derivative one.

First, I don't even expect you to be moved by facts, evidence, U-Haul, indeed anything.

Especially when you refuse to bring any up that are relevant. At such points as these, where you bring nothing to the fore and start repeating yourself (earlier than usual this time) humor is needed to spare readers the tedium.

I'm asking critical questions

You’re asking questions asked ages ago and long since answered. Bauer hypothesis, ever heard of it? Dead for many years.

that the original points are lost on the glazed faces of your followers who use the "he-was-more-funny-so-he-must-have-won-the-debate" criteria.

Ya’ll gonna let Bud call you dumb like that?

Book Burning was as early as Acts 19

As noted, they burned their own property. Not other people’s material. Book burning was also standard pagan behavior long before Paul.

and there's plenty of evidence that book-burning was the way the "orthodox" removed the influence of "heresy" after that time. I will supply it in my next post if you act like you never read church history in your life and ask me to "prove" this point.

Supply away. But if you do be sure and explain why we should believe that this was destruction of the “original” menace as opposed to getting rid of the works of a nuisance derivative movement. Begging the question is not sufficient.

You will have to first settle the scholarly debate of who exactly the recipients of the book of Galations were

Not really. Either way you have a very limited scope, as noted, and repeating yourself will not win the day.

Oh, for those interested in the Alexandria debate

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html