Development Of The New Testament Canon Puns

Thank you

Re-reading the New Testament, it was interesting to pay attention to who exactly was speaking and who exactly was the audience. For example, Luke 10:1-23 when Christ sends out the 72 to heal people, etc. Being raised evangelical, I heard different verses from this section cherry picked and used for modern evangelical instruction, even though Christ was very much only giving the charge to specifically 72 people 2,000 years ago.

Or Paul speaking directly to Corinthians, Philippians, Thessalonians, etc. He was addressing specific issues, in specific cities of different cultures, in the ancient world.

Or just how often the Bible recorded Jesus speaking and he was only speaking to a primarily Jewish audience, but modern Christians use that text as modern commands and instructions... even though Christ was very clear at the time that he was only here for the lost people of Israel when it came to those outside of Judiasm.

I’ve heard for example that the Gospel or Peter was almost considered canon. I have also heard that some books are considered by modern scholars to be forgeries.

Religion aside, are any of the canonical texts on shakier historical ground than some non-canonical texts?

I'm a Catholic, have been blessed with all the sacraments, except for Confirmation (still working on that) and firmly believe Jesus is Son of Man, and is the Messiah, I've been Catholic all my life. I ask this question because when Atheists point this out their technically correct there is no evidence to support there was Moses, from The Book of Exodus ever in history. So that begs the question why is it canon then? Or why we keep it canon? I feel we do bc its been part of our doctrine for years. I just want to personally say I still believe in The Old testament because I believe it did happen, despite there being no evidence for it. Its been with us for so long in our belife system why should we make it not canon now, and despite that there is no evidence Moses existed, others can not prove that he did not not exist. Still I defend the story I ask perhaps the Egyptians wiped their defeat from their historical record; perhaps the archaeologists were looking in the wrong place. As Ishaan Tharoor has noted over at the Washington Post, some scholarship has suggested that perhaps a Moses-like figure did live, but that he wasn’t Moses-Moses; he could have been Egyptian, for example. But I believe our Lord said it best when he said in John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Hi all,

I read through Bruce M. Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance as I was interested in the claim that almost every Church Father had a different canon. Using that as a primary source, I've compiled a spreadsheet of the how early Christians considered NT books and deutorocanonical books that were in circulation in the Early Church. This is based off of ntcanon.org but I found it wanting of more authorities. Column A is completely copied from them, and links to their site where there are details on the text of interest and how different authorities viewed them.

On methodology for determining whether a source considered a NT book "canonical"... Many of the early sources, including Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius, definitely considered NT writings authoritative but did not use the formula (γέγραπται ie it is written) that indicated that they were Scripture because in the early Church (1st century-mid 2nd century) the Septuagint was considered Scripture, and much of the teachings from Christ and the Apostles were preserved orally. It was inevitable that there would be a shift from oral to written tradition of the Gospels but this process was likely accelerated by the appearance of heretical sects such as the Marcionites. In conclusion, wherever you see the "o" or P (for parallel quotation found in NT) corresponding for early sources, one can imagine that the source considered it Scripture in terms of importance and authority, but not Scripture in the strict sense because that definition of Scripture was reserved for the OT.

The general layout is the text of interest in the left column, and the person/text of interest in the 3rd row (1st and 2nd row are details on the person/text). I've bolded Church Fathers and left comments where I thought they were necessary but it is likely that more is needed for someone more inquisitive. Additional tables comparing collections of Scripture whether through manuscripts like the Muratorian Fragment or canons compiled by national churches like the Coptic Church are available elsewhere (see hyperlinks), but I created this one because there didn't seem to be one more comprehensive than on ntcanon.

Feel free to download and share this, and to edit it however you see fit. It is available on Sheets [here](https://drive.google.co

Most of the books I have seen take a theological stance I was hoping for something more historical. Thank you in advance.

I've been blessed with the incredible opportunity of interning at Canon's Innovation Lab this summer. The goal is simple: we chase new ideas, rapidly engineer what we have to, and see how the community responds to it.

I'm a software engineer, not a photographer (it still remains to be something I'm interested in). With that said, there's only so many good ideas I can come up with given my highly limited exposure to the field.

I have complete creative freedom over what ideas I pursue, and what I build. With that said, I want to hear about what you guys would change about the way photography is done today. Would you change your equipment in any way? Is there anything that absolutely frustrates you regarding the ways cameras operate? Are you interested in novel photo-editing techniques? What about smartphone photography?

The best way for me to understand what to pursue is to reach out to you guys. If there's anything you have in mind, please comment below. I'm going to spend this summer doing my utmost to bring new ideas to life, with the hope that some of my work comes to users in a new and interesting way.

We're trying to push the boundaries of the industry. Share your most exciting ideas.

Western Michigan University philosophy professor and fundamentalist evangelical Christian apologist Tim McGrew has developed an interesting and, in his words, "compelling" argument for the veracity of the gospels that shows the documents have the "ring of truth."

In contrast to the prevailing views of Biblical scholarship on the authorship of the gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Authorship) and the methodology the authors used to gather information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority), McGrew believes that the gospels were written by their traditional authors (John Mark, Luke the Evangelist, John the Apostle, and Matthew) as eyewitness accounts.

Among other things, he bases his views on "undesigned coincidences" between the four gospels, cases where one author reports a given event and another author provides additional details not present in the other's writing. McGrew feels that non-eyewitness authors working from common sources (Q and Mark) couldn't include such undesigned coincidences; only eyewitness accounts could produce such information. He also believes that individuals looking to fabricate mythical accounts from whole cloth couldn't possibly create such coincidences.

I wondered whether why this argument with regards to the gospels, wasn't convincing or made much sense to scholars.

Here is the video with his argument (note, it's long):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wUcrwYocgM

Here is a "cliff notes" version of McGrew's argument:http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/08/tim-mcgrew-on-undesigned-coincidences-in-the-gospels/

Here's McGrew's response to an agnostic's critique of his hypothesis:http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/01/tim-mcgrew-replies-to-ed-babinskis.html

Here's a list of a few of the "undesigned coincidences:"http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=190

*What do you think? Is McGrew right? Are there undesigned coincidences in the gospels? Do such coincidences indicate eyewitness accounts, or can they be explained through the traditional two-source hypothesis? Are such coincidences really undesigned, or could the authors of the gosp

I apologise if this has already been said before. I’m still quite new to this subreddit, but I’m certain this hasn’t been brought up in at least the last few weeks.

Now, imo the movie was mediocre but I enjoyed it for the most part. But since the movie was released, we haven’t heard anything about the progression of events that occurred in that 1 and a half hours. As a bit of a recap, at the end of the movie we see Cal and co with the Apple, and Cal does a leap of faith and the screen goes to black. Since then, as far as I know, nothing has even been mentioned of the character or this new Apple of Eden, not in books, not in comics, not in the 2 games that have come out since. Or maybe I’ve missed some Easter egg or something? But as far as I know, Cal and that Apple don’t even exist in the AC universe due to lack of mention. With a weapon like the Apple, with its immense power, I would have thought either the Assassins would’ve tracked it down by now, Cal would have gone looking for a cell to hand it in and officially join the Brotherhood, or the Templars would be hot on his trail. But since ‘16? Nada. I think. If there’s been any new developments that I’ve missed, which is likely, please let me know and forget I ever posted this. If not, well my thoughts...

The fact of the matter is that the inmates of the Foundation were not real Assassins, save for Cal’s father. They were criminals kidnapped off the streets who discovered their lineage and the existence of Assassins and Templars through the memories locked away in their DNA, and became kind of fanatic in that way. None of them as I can recall have ever even met a real modern day Assassin. So since it’s been 3 years and the sequel to the movie’s been axed, I would have thought Ubisoft would’ve dropped a hint about where the story is currently but then I have this unnerving feeling they may have done what they do with pretty much every other character that wasn’t Altaïr, Ezio or Desmond. They’ve just forgotten about them altogether with no intention of even finishing where they left of. All I want is an update from some Easter egg in game or perhaps wrap it all up in a comic >!like they did with Juno!<. There won’t be another movie, but since they started it, I would like that they finish it, one way or another.

It makes no sense for the past 3 years Cal has been in hiding, hasn’t even been found by no one and still retains the Apple, the very thing he knows, or should know, is too dang

Cafeteria-style religion, everybody.

&nbsp;

EDIT: The relevant verses Christians making this claim ignore:

> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

Thank you guys for pointing this out!

&nbsp;

EDIT 2: Made it to r/all. Hello everyone!

&nbsp;

EDIT 3: Wow, my first award! Thank you, kind stranger!

EDIT 4: Second silver award! Thank you lots!

Also, surprising to see how many Christians aren't aware that some tout this "Jesus fixing" argument. I can assure you I'm not misrepresenting or straw-manning. I'm simply expression a common answer we tend to hear in response to Old Testament laws.

“It makes sense if you interpret it in light of the OT (Old Testame Original Trilogy)”

“The new books movies don’t abolish the OT franchise, they fulfill it!”

“Leave your political agenda out of your interpretation!” “Mary-Sues can’t be priests Jedis!”

“No, they didn’t write it in chronological order stupid”

“Wait how many authors directors?”

“Oh we knew Judas JarJar had a treacherous plan all along”

“I didn’t did kill myself, I AM your FaThEr!” What?

“ReeeeeEeeE”

“Well some people would just rather watch Star Trek go to hell.”

Can YOU think of any parallels? Give it a shot:

Pilate program in effect: Protestant top level responses only

There are two ways that the books of the Old Testament were selected by the Catholic Church and Martin Luther which became the preferred choice of the Protestants.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we see that serious animosity began between the Christians and the Jews based on the disagreements in Acts 4 and 7:54-8:3. After Peter's vision led to the conversions of Gentiles in Acts 10, a natural result was that the Christians wanted to familiarize the Gentile Christians with the Scriptures that prepared for the coming of Jesus, and they would be invited to attend the synagogue service where the Scriptures would be read since none of the Christians owned personal copies. Eventually, the Jews figured out that uncircumcised Gentiles were attending these services in the synagogue, and put a stop to it, which caused increased difficulty due to the decision in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians did not need to be baptised. The resulting disagreement cut Christians off from access to the Hewbrew scriptures, but resulted in the Christians resorting to the use of the Greek Septuagint due to it's availability througth the Library of Alexandria. This had the added benefit that it was already translated to Greek which accellerated the familiarity Gentiles were able to access the OT scriptures without needing to wait for a Christian translation to be performed. We can even see that the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Greek because it is quoted by the writers of the New Testament 9 to 1 over retranslating from the Hebrew.

When the Council of Hippo settled on the books of the New Testament late in the 4th century, they followed the example of the first century Church, and selected as the books of the Old Testament the list of books in the Septuagint. No serious dissent was encountered for more than 1100 years. Then, when Martin Luther was looking for a way to get rid of several books, he decided upon siding with the Jewish rabbis of the second century instead of the Christians.

This raises a very serious problem with the Protestant canon. Why did God guide the Protestant Church to side with the early Christians that the Jews were right about Jesus being the messiah and seperating from Judiasm because of the events detailed in the book of Acts, but they were wrong and should have submitted to the decisions of the rabbis who had rejected Jesus as the messiah more than 50 years later? The Jews wer

I can't find any satisfactory historical research about the christian holy scriptures, thus the next clue I am looking for is whether the Catholic Church did ever have the total monopoly of the press. In such case I guess the New Testament should be considered as pure propaganda. It would not be the first time in history that history itself has been rewritten, that a God has been invented (e.g. France 17th century, Japan before ww2). Could the Vatican State have operated a cultural revolution similarly to the Chinese ones?