Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Muratorian Canon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christian3
    replied
    Originally posted by psstein View Post
    Yes, there would be. Philippians 2:5-8 is a pre-Pauline hymn.

    The best book on this is Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
    I have that book and will read it again. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • psstein
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    OK, I think everyone would agree that the pre-existence and the deity of the Messiah, mostly comes from the Gospel of John.

    In that case, would there be enough evidence from the rest of the New Testament to prove the pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ if the Gospel of John had not been written?
    Yes, there would be. Philippians 2:5-8 is a pre-Pauline hymn.

    The best book on this is Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian3
    replied
    Originally posted by psstein View Post
    The beloved disciple is almost certainly either John of Zebedee or John the Elder. The Gospel of John is formally anonymous, but so are the rest of the other gospels. Anonymity of written works was not uncommon in the ancient Mediterranean.

    I think the external evidence for the authorship of the gospels is mostly inconclusive.
    OK, I think everyone would agree that the pre-existence and the deity of the Messiah, mostly comes from the Gospel of John.

    In that case, would there be enough evidence from the rest of the New Testament to prove the pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ if the Gospel of John had not been written?

    I appreciate your help. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • psstein
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    I use it to show that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

    I hear all kinds of comments like: "you don't know who wrote the Gospel of John." "You don't know who the beloved disciple was." "The author of the Gospel of John is anonymous."
    The beloved disciple is almost certainly either John of Zebedee or John the Elder. The Gospel of John is formally anonymous, but so are the rest of the other gospels. Anonymity of written works was not uncommon in the ancient Mediterranean.

    I think the external evidence for the authorship of the gospels is mostly inconclusive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian3
    replied
    Originally posted by psstein View Post
    Yes, though there has recently been a movement to re-date it to the fourth century.

    I don't know what you mean by "authentic." Is the information contained reliable? Some of it is and some of it probably isn't.
    I use it to show that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

    I hear all kinds of comments like: "you don't know who wrote the Gospel of John." "You don't know who the beloved disciple was." "The author of the Gospel of John is anonymous."

    Leave a comment:


  • psstein
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

    It is my understanding that we have an 8th century copy of a second century document.

    Is is considered authentic?

    Thanks.
    Yes, though there has recently been a movement to re-date it to the fourth century.

    I don't know what you mean by "authentic." Is the information contained reliable? Some of it is and some of it probably isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian3
    replied
    I think this is an important document because it answers the question of who "we" are in John 21.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Just to note that it is pretty common for us to have copies of documents written centuries after the original.
    Yep. It's in fact very unusual to have even copies written close in time to the original; actual original documents are vanishingly rare.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Just to note that it is pretty common for us to have copies of documents written centuries after the original.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian3
    started a topic The Muratorian Canon

    The Muratorian Canon

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

    It is my understanding that we have an 8th century copy of a second century document.

    Is is considered authentic?

    Thanks.
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X