It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are talking about an inclusion by a council of the church in a canon.
You could start on revelation by considering why it was left out of the canon of the bible when it was first introduced...
If you are talking about an official recognition, but not by a council resulting in a canon, then there is an earlier one.
The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419. These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
Pope Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.
TextYou could start on revelation by considering why it was left out of the canon of the bible when it was first introduced... Revelation was rejected by the church for the first 400 some odd years after the life of Jesus... It was likely added because the book struck fear into the hearts of men... And the church prays on fear of the unknown... always has - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Vethumanbeing Why a hierarchy at all. I consider all people angels and representations of Gods intent.
jmdewy60I think it might be hypothetical more than anything else.
It's a way to visualize things to get certain points across.
People make things all ceremony and structured as a way to awe the masses, so you can have things like kings.That thing existing then becomes a language to describe things that really aren't exactly that way, but we don't have yet a commonly understandable way to describe otherwise.
The letter to the Romans by Paul was written before the gospels, and it was mainly written to the Roman gentiles, so they were not a later phenomenon.
It was after Rome murdered the Jews and stole Christianity that we find the Roman Gentile Christians emerge at the end of the first century and beginning of the second century.
Origen was later declared a heretic.
Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospel (s) (with Acts being separated) the thirteen Pauline letters, 1st John, and Revelation as acknowledged by Gentile Christianity. Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel According to the Hebrews were being disputed by the Gentile church at this time.
I have to make a conscious effort to detach myself from the mythological aspects of the Old Testament, since I was raised as basically a fundamentalist, and was up until quite recently.
I wont fall for the story that because we see an airplane in the sky it becomes as fokelore "a silver bird with fixed wings".
TextThe letter to the Romans by Paul was written before the gospels, and it was mainly written to the Roman gentiles, so they were not a later phenomenon.
TextThere were plenty of Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, and they had a very large synagogue in the city devoted to them specifically.
TextNo one spoke Hebrew outside of rabbinic schools, and that was another form of Hebrew and not Biblical Hebrew, which did not exist outside of the Bible itself.
Could you at least cite the supposed documents?
The history of the first Jerusalem Church is well documented and it does not need me to defend its documentation.
It makes sense that Paul was writing when he was actively evangelizing. The gospels have internal evidence that supports a later date to their being written, towards the end of the lives of the actual original Apostles.
You could argue this all day but the fact is that no one actually knows. Scholars have tried to date the Greek manuscripts which we have today by their historicity . . .
I don't know where you got that idea from.The Torah readings had to be translated by Meturgemans for the audience who were Aramaic speakers.
Aramaic and Hebrew were so closely related that if you understood one then you understood the other.
The writer of Acts was equating the way that Jews spoke Aramaic, with "Hebrew".
Now tell me jmdewey, are you trying to tell people that Paul was jabbering in Hebrew to a Greek audience who did not understand Hebrew?
He spoke a few words, that is not unexpected, living not far away from those who spoke that language. Jesus grew up in Egypt, where he would have spoken Greek.
. . . Jesus also spoke Aramaic even on the cross. The scriptures as well as outside literature confirms this . . .
VHBI wont fall for the story that because we see an airplane in the sky it becomes as fokelore "a silver bird with fixed wings".
Jmdewey60 I have to make a conscious effort to detach myself from the mythological aspects of the Old Testament, since I was raised as basically a fundamentalist, and was up until quite recently. I think it is psychologically quite unhealthy to take any of it at face value, or to subscribe to any of its values other than the ones that Jesus isolated and endorsed.