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.
Did you read the end of Revelations? There is a curse there. What ever you add shall be added unto you, what ever you take away, that portion shall be taken away from you
Originally posted by defcon5
You are correct only in that the Roman Catholic Church canonized its official version of the Bible at the Council of Trent... However the Books of the New Testament were already accepted long before the Council of Trent, dating back to at least the days of St. Irenaeus, who quotes all but six of them in his work Against Heresies in 180AD. However, even with that in mind, I am certain that the Curse/Blessing made in Revelation applies only to the Book of Revelation.
According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. Source
The Seventy weeks ended shortly after the death of Christ around 30AD, and before the destruction of Israel in 70AD. Following swiftly on the end of the Seventy Weeks was the end of the Age of the Jews, and the beginning of the Age of Gentiles or Church Age.
While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
--The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, quoted here
Originally posted by defcon5
The early Church and Church Fathers had pretty much chosen an accepted cannon of the Bible, mainly the Gospels.
Writings like Irenaeus show us that there was already consensuses on many of the books.
The whole point of Against Heresies was to stop the influx of Gnostic teachings into the Christian religion, and to do so Irenaeus was using accepted books that the first church fathers considered to be divinely inspired works.
(The First Epistle of Clement... and the Book of the Shepherd of Hermas) are now considered to be Pseudepigraphal texts. There is nothing preventing you from reading them, they are simply not considered on-par with the texts of the accepted New Testament. They are not banned, or shunned books, they are actually considered good books for a Christian to read.
Originally posted by Astyanax
So Irenaeus's canon isn't the same as yours.
It was extremely similar (only off by 6 books)
And the Gospels (which are the most important part) are exactly the same. There has been no change, doubt, or argument about the Gospels since the days of John the Apostle:
The record of history is that, by the end of the first century, those four Gospels were established as the only inspired accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It was not a decision left to the whim of Constantine or a later authority figure but arose from an apostle who had been an eyewitness of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
The other letters are really nowhere near as important as the Gospels themselves.
The New Testament could simply be cut down to the Four Gospels, and the message of the Bible would really not change in the least.
An atheist website... is not the source I would use when trying to discuss the legitimacy of the books of the Bible. A source which has a bone to grind with the Church to begin with, and is nothing more then an competing faith in its own right.
Originally posted by pro-all
The world seriously have a big problem in their hand. If God is only interested in updationg the bible among the tes of other religious books, then it means only christianity is the true religion but this appears by a long shot not to be the truth. [B]Asking such a question as in the op to me seems fall under religious supremacy.[/B]