[Athos]

Really? So you are telling me that the Jews had nothing, that the entire OT is a complete fabrication?

You are telling me that in the NT when a variety of books of the NT were already called as Holy Scripture, that those who penned those books, including the Apostles had no authority, and we all had to wait until a specific denomination came into existence a few centuries later?

No, TJ, that's not what she's saying (obviously).

No, she is not saying that the entire OT is a fabrication.
No, she is not saying that the Apostles had no authority.
No, she is not saying we all had to wait for a specific denomination.

You know what she's saying as do all of us reading this thread.

Keep in mind that when you post nonsense like this that you are exposing yourself as a person who has no regard for what others say, and that you attempt to twist what others say into whatever your position "du jour" happens to be at the moment.

Do you seriously believe that silly posts like this will win people to your side?

(That's rhetorical - no need to reply).

[galveston]

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

All these extra books can possibly do is add some history. They CANNOT change any doctrine or subtract anything.

If these extra books do NOT agree with the other 66 books, then they are FALSE.

Otherwise, you would have the Bible contradicting itself, and there are NO contradictions of substance in the Bible. (Contrary to what the Atheists love to say)

Therefore to say that Tradition, written or oral, can give us anything other than what is written in the Bible is false.

[classyT]

Gal,

Exactly!!

[Wondergirl]

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

Those writings were the accepted canon until the Protestant Reformation.

[Tj3]

No, TJ, that's not what she's saying (obviously).

No, she is not saying that the entire OT is a fabrication.
No, she is not saying that the Apostles had no authority.
No, she is not saying we all had to wait for a specific denomination.

You know what she's saying as do all of us reading this thread.

That is the problem. If someone says that the Bible was the creation of, and authenticated by an organization that started in the 4th century, then they are in effect denying that the Tanakh was Holy scripture and that the Apopstles did not have authority to declare what was and was not scripture - because they did. That is the only logical conclusion.

Do you seriously believe that silly posts like this will win people to your side?

I really am not concerned whether you like it or not, and I am not out to win people to "my side". I am merely here presenting what scripture says. Some will like it, others won't. So be it.

[Tj3]

Those writings were the accepted canon until the Protestant Reformation.

No they weren't. In fact one of the books made canonical within the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent even internal denies inspiration.

[Wondergirl]

No they weren't. In fact one of the books made canonical within the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent even internal denies inspiration.

Yes, they were. They were the books accepted as the canon by the only Christian church in the Western Hemisphere until the Protestant Reformation.

The NT books were not written in the order in which we know them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts... ). The Epistles were written first.

[galveston]

All the Canonical books were written within the life times of the Apostles. Otherwise there could be no recorded testimony of the eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry and resurrection.

Matthew: 37 AD
Mark: 57-63 AD
Luke: 58-63 AD
John: 90 AD
Acts: 63 AD
Romans: 58-60 AD
I Corinthians: 59 AD
II Corinthians: 60 AD
Galatians: 68 AD
Ephesians: 64 AD
Philippians: 64 AD
Colossians: 64 AD
I Thessalonians: 54 AD
II Thessalonians: 54-55 AD
I Timothy: 67 AD
II Timothy: 68 AD
Titus: 67 AD
Philemon: 64 AD
Hebrews: 68 AD
James: 45 AD
I Peter: 60 AD
II Peter: 61-65 AD
I John: 90 AD
II John: 90 AD
III John: 9) AD
Jude: 66 AD
Revelation: 96 AD

So you can see that Matthew wrote his gospel first, very shortly after the events.

[Wondergirl]

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you --

"According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although this is often disputed. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later... Most secular scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95."

[galveston]

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

[Wondergirl]

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

I said EVEN Wikipedia disagrees. Best scholarship from where?

***ADDED -- Mark was written before Matthew. That's a no-brainer.

[Tj3]

Yes, they were. They were the books accepted as the canon by the only Christian church in the Western Hemisphere until the Protestant Reformation.

Believe as you wish, but I rather stand by what I know to be true. If indeed that were the case, there would have been no need for the Council of Trent to make a decision to add the non-canonical books to the canon of their denomination.

[Tj3]

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you --

"According to tradition,....

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

[Wondergirl]

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

Roman tradition?

[Tj3]

Roman tradition?

Roman Catholic denomination.

[Akoue]

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

Would you share with us the names of those scholars that you have found advancing the dates you have provided? I would like very much to read their arguments for these dates since they lie well-outside those accepted by academic historians and Biblical scholars (be they Protestant, secular, Catholic, or other--I'm thinking of people like Joachim Jeremias, Kurt Aland, Marcus Barth, Geza Vermes, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, W.H.C. Friend, Jaroslav Pelikan, Bentley Layton, Wayne Meeks, Eric Meyers, Bruce Metzger, E.P. Sanders, Oscar Cullmann, Henry Chadwick, Harold Attridge, John Meier... well, basically a who's who of NT scholarship). If you can provide bibliographical info without going to too much trouble that would, of course, be ideal. But if it would be a hassle to do so, it would be a big help even just to have their names.

(Ps. I mention the names for the benefit of anyone--I'm looking at you Wondergirl--who might be interested in having a look at some of the best scholarly work on the NT. Well, that and to give some idea why I am both interested in and incredulous about the scholarly work that backs up the dates provided by Galveston.)

[Akoue]

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics. The question of the role and status of Tradition is quite separate from issues about the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Tj3]

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Good. Then wikipedia needs to clarify whose tradition they are referring to.

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics.

Anyone can recognize it, but that does not make it any less a denominational tradition.

[Wondergirl]

Anyone can recognize it, but that does not make it any less a denominational tradition.

Even you hold to Tradition.

[classyT]

Wondergirl,

I'm curious... what traditions do you think he holds to? That was an interesting comment and I don't think I hold on to tradition.. give me an example.