An orthodox consideration of the cannon of the new testament

[Chileice]

Just be clear, are you suggesting he meant "Orthodox" or "orthodox"? Two very different things when referring to Christianity... :

It really doesn't make much difference in this case as the Orthodox Church accepts the same 27 books of the NT as the Catholic Church or as most Protestant churches. While the Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds 8 others as you suggest, they are not treated with the same level of authority as the other 27 also known as the "Narrower" Canon and undisputed by all Adherents to the Church. The mere fact that there has been such widespread agreement should be of more interest than the fact there has been some division.

You also appear to indicate that any view that does not coincide with that of Western Protestantism (non-existent prior to the 16th century) is heterodox... :think:

A view that doesn't follow Protestant/Catholic /Orthodox.. yes. I am not saying they are necessarily heretical but rather heterodox. Groups whose ideas vary at important points with the mainstream thinking. Some may think such groups to be heretical and others may accept them.

 

[Zakath]

... The mere fact that there has been such widespread agreement should be of more interest than the fact there has been some division.

That depends on whether one is a holder of a "glass half empty" or "glass half full" point of view.

From the outside (where we atheists are viewing things), the claim by virtually all Christian sects is that they have a particular set of writings, unique by nature of the influence of the deity upon their authors and identified as such by the deity, would be a much more powerful argument if all Christians actually accepted the same books and only the same books as divinely inspired and canononical.

A view that doesn't follow Protestant/Catholic /Orthodox.. yes. I am not saying they are necessarily heretical but rather heterodox. Groups whose ideas vary at important points with the mainstream thinking. Some may think such groups to be heretical and others may accept them.

Thank you for clarifying.

But where does one draw the line between heterodoxy and heresy with regard to the Christian scriptural canon, and what criteria do you suggest to make the evaluation of whether a given position is heterodox or heretical?

 

[servent101]

Zakath

But where does one draw the line between heterodoxy and heresy with regard to the Christian scriptural canon, and what criteria do you suggest to make the evaluation of whether a given position is heterodox or heretical?

And then there are people like me – who reject the idea of a canon altogether – that this in itself produces heresy – the connotation that God spoke here in our Scriptures, therefore all other Scriptures are wrong. There are those who believe that the Bible is True, but if taken too literal or viewed through the eyes of anyone “other” than the letters were written too, that this immensely encumbers the Truth that is there. There is no fraternity to join, that once admitted, one has to view things as a group to know that one’s beliefs are trustworthy.

From the outside (where we atheists are viewing things), the claim by virtually all Christian sects is that they have a particular set of writings, unique by nature of the influence of the deity upon their authors and identified as such by the deity, would be a much more powerful argument if all Christians actually accepted the same books and only the same books as divinely inspired and canononical.

Almost all atheists I talk too I agree with, that the concept of god, as they see it, that this god could not exist – I also try to point that fact out to most Christians. I have very little success at that – and you say that if the Christians would hold to some sort of uniform structure of belief that their argument would be stronger? – I can’t see the logic in that. The perspective of the atheist is that their god is not a logical or believable concept, so if they are wrangling over their source material, possibly they would be able to come up with a god, that is actually believable. At least if there is disagreement in the Christian camp, there is hope that one day they might satisfy you Zakath.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

 

[Inquisitor]

Care to explain that one Zakath, cause that is just crap. The 27 books of the NT and them alone were ratified by the late fourst century, and the only deviation in the RCC and Protestant cannon has been in the area of the appocryphal books which are not NT writtings, but writtings that came in between the time of the OT and the NT (which I might add that the Jews never considered them to be Scriptural).

Not so. The Ethiopean Jews thought them to be scriptural.