Question for the Christians Here

[MustafaMc]

How were the details regarding the Temptation of Jesus (alone in the wilderness), his Gethsemane Prayer (disciples asleep) and the Trial of Jesus (disciples fled) conveyed to the gospel authors?

 

[Grace Seeker]

How were the details regarding the Temptation of Jesus (alone in the wilderness), his Gethsemane Prayer (disciples asleep) and the Trial of Jesus (disciples fled) conveyed to the gospel authors?

Any answer would be pure speculation. But these and a few others are events recorded in the Gospel narrative for which there are no apparent eye-witnessess and certainly for which no Gospel writer was present. But I think we can suggest that Jesus himself might have later told his disciples about these experiences. I certainly don't believe that every conversation that Jesus had with his disiciples is recorded in the scripture. We can see from the much more detailed account of the passover supper in the Upper Room provided in John's Gospel that is not including in Matthew, Mark, or Luke's more condensed telling of that event that each writer selected what to include for the account he was creating, and hence also what to exclude. I am quite certain that Jesus told jokes and other stories that are completely lost to history. During times like this Jesus could have also shared the experiences you speak of. On top of that, I don't count the Holy Spirit out as a possible source of inspiration of things that the Gospel writers might not have known about from any one else.

 

[Esther462]

When I joined this board, I was Christian. I was asking questions about on how to converted to Islam on the BBC message board. There is too much bicering on there:argue:. I wanted to find out about Islam.
Now I am Muslim now. I find that the answers are loads better and there is no bicering on here.:sunny:

 

[MustafaMc]

What I am hearing lately is a largely human origin for the NT. This is in stark contrast to what I was taught growing up as a Baptist about it being either the inspired or literal Word of God. I doubt that many Protestants in southern USA would agree with these latest posts.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What I am hearing lately is a largely human origin for the NT. This is in stark contrast to what I was taught growing up as a Baptist about it being either the inspired or literal Word of God. I doubt that many Protestants in southern USA would agree with these latest posts.

Divine inspiration does not rule out human agency, nor vice versa. As far as "literal Word", I'm sure that you are right, but I've expressed myself on this already, and doubt that many who would claim to be literalists really are as much as they think they are.

 

[MustafaMc]

Divine inspiration does not rule out human agency, nor vice versa. As far as "literal Word", I'm sure that you are right, but I've expressed myself on this already, and doubt that many who would claim to be literalists really are as much as they think they are.

Yes, you have expressed this point of view before, but I am surprised to see it shared by other Christians.

How can one establish the authenticity of claimed Divine inspiration? Were the commandments given to Moses inspired or were they literal Words of God? What about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount? What about Paul's letter to the Church at Galatia? How does one establish the Divine inspiration for Revelations?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, you have expressed this point of view before, but I am surprised to see it shared by other Christians.

What? Did you think I was a flake living in my own little world? :nervous:

 

[MustafaMc]

Divine inspiration does not rule out human agency, nor vice versa.

Of course there must be human agency, but how does one establish the Divine inspiration part? Honestly, some of your and Keltoi's posts here seem to be more "inspired" than much of the NT.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Of course there must be human agency, but how does one establish the Divine inspiration part? Honestly, some of your and Keltoi's posts here seem to be more "inspired" than much of the NT.

Perhaps they are equally inspired, but not being a standard for faith and practice they aren't worthy of being included in the canon of scripture.

Also, as Jayda has pointed out, if not here, then elsewhere recently, there is the connection to an apostle that is hard for either of us to claim, though I do know quite a few people named Peter, James and John.

 

[chosen]

Honest answer..I am intriqued by the roles one religion plays in the day to day decisions people make as well as their political views..I am of the firm belief that most people are basically the same..I like to look for common ground and try to understand the differences between faiths..

 

[MustafaMc]

Perhaps they are equally inspired, but not being a standard for faith and practice they aren't worthy of being included in the canon of scripture.

How was this "standard" of acceptability established by the churches and finalized at the Council of Hippo?

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR01.html
According to Glenn Davis, “Saint Athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and Egyptian national leader, was the chief defender of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like, but not of the same, substance as God the Father. Athanasius attended the Council of Nicaea (325) and shortly thereafter became bishop of Alexandria (328).”24 In AD 367, Bishop Athanasius wrote a letter to his churches to announce the date of Easter. Apparently this was a letter in which he wrote yearly, in order to remind his churches of the date of Easter. What is unique about this letter is that, he formally lists all of the New Testament books that make-up our present NT canon. His list of twenty-seven NT books was intended to serve as a guide to his churches, so that they would know what books were acceptable and which ones were not. .... What is important about his “39th Festal Letter," written in AD367, is that not only does his list of twenty-seven books appear in our New Testament, but that from this point forward, these books begin to take on a new meaning within the Church. In essence, the twenty-seven books are promulgated throughout the known world as sacred scripture; which means that all other books whether written afore or after, are to take second place to the twenty-seven books that make up the New Testament. Thus, this manifested itself in full-fruition at the Council of Hippo in AD 393, where the Church (ekklesia) ‘officially accepts’ and recognizes the corpus of the New Testament canon as sacred scripture. It should be stated, however, that there were other preceding councils that list the NT books, but it was the council at Hippo that officially recognized our present NT canon. Hence, as Glenn Davis remarks, “the first council that accepted the present New Testament canon was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE).”

It seems to me that Bishop Athanasius was instrumental in establishing the "canon of scripture" and all scriptures that supported the Arian view were likely destroyed after the Council of Nicea.

The teachings of Arius were clearly monotheistic.
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft340.htm
His teaching was that the Father alone is God. The Logos or Son, Arius maintained, was a created being - formed out of nothing by the Father before the universe was made. He therefore said that there was a time when the Son had not existed.

According to Arius, the Son was the first and greatest of all that God had created; He was closer to God than all others, and the rest of creation related to God through the Son (for instance, God had created everything else through Christ).

By developing this arch-heresy, Arius thought he was defending the fundamental truth that there is only one God - monotheism. A belief in the full deity of Christ, he supposed, would mean the Father and Son were two separate Gods, which contradicted the many statements of the Bible about God’s oneness.

Arius was also unhappy with Origen’s idea that there could be ‘degrees’ or ‘grades’ of divinity, with the Son being slightly less divine than the Father (this became known after the Nicene Council as semi-Arianism).

Arius argued that since the Father is clearly God, it follows that the Son could not be God - so He must be a created being.

Arius' point of view was strongly similar to Muslim points of view put forward on this forum.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I think I've addressed this before, so I suspect that you are asking something different than what I am picking up on. Maybe if you asked it a slightly different way I would have a better idea how to respond.

 

[MustafaMc]

How was the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of various writings determined such that the 27 books were canonized? Except for Revelations the books of the NT seem to be of human origin.

 

[Grace Seeker]

How was the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of various writings determined such that the 27 books were canonized? Except for Revelations the books of the NT seem to be of human origin.

Sorry, I really don't know. All I know is that even before Athanasius made his list, that 100 years before him that others were using the same basic list. If you take a look at the various lists that are known:

In the first century there wasn't really any sense of a need to set aside certain books as canonical and others as non-canonical. The scriptures were the books inherited through the Church's roots in Judaism. Most specifically, they were the Greek verision of the Hebrew Tanakah known as the Septuagint. To that, we can see that other writings became accepted for use in the church as well 2 Peter 3:14-16 gives a rare glimpse of this:

So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it. (The Message)

So, at least in some churches, Paul's writings were already accepted on par with the rest of scripture. One of the earliest church Fathers, Clement of Rome, regularly used the Letter to the Hebrews, and pretty much every other book that has made it into our canon.

The New Testament used in the church at Rome in 200 AD (known as the Muratroian Canon) included:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1 & 2 John, Jude, the Revelation of John, and 2 books that would NOT be included in the canon used today the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. They also used the Shepherd of Hermas, in private but not in public worship.

The New Testament used by Origen in 250 AD included:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation of John. Origen also used, but did not consider canonical Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas (NOT the Gospel of Barnabas that some Muslims like to quote), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (also known as the Didache), and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

The New Testament used by church historian Eusebius in 300 AD included:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, the Revelation of John. Eusebius also used but did not consider canonical James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude. And Eusebius specifically said that the following should NOT be part of the canon, even though they were worth reading for other purposes: the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews (this is different than the Letter to the Hebrews which is in the Bible today and which Eusebius did not comment on at all), the Revelation of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and the Didache.

But it wasn't Nicea as some like to suggest, nor Hippo, that set the canon, it was the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Interestingly, in the eastern part of the church the Syrian church continued to use Tatian's Diatessaron -- a harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- instead of the four separate Gospels. Later the Syrian church also rejected Revelation and demoted the general letters of Peter and John. All were restored, but not till the mid-sixth century.

As to exactly how the Holy Spirit orchestrated all of this, I don't think any one can say. I can't explain how it is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me today when he does. But I know that sometimes he has done this as well. So, if I can't explain my own personal experience of it, I don't think that I am going to be able to explain to you or anyone else how he did that in the lives a a whole lot of different people nearly 1600-1800 years ago. But I do trust that he was speaking to them just like he still leads me today, and that in doing so he worked with them till the church got it right, or at least got what it needed to get, maybe that is a better way of saying it than that they got it right, because that would be like saying nothing else was of God and I don't believe that books like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letter of Barnabas are of the devil; they may in fact be inspired as well. I just don't think that they are meant to be part of that which is set aside as the standard for faith and practice. As to why some of what is in there (2 & 3 John come to my mind) is included, I don't really have an answer for that either. But that is just a witness to my lacking, not any problem with scripture.

 

[MustafaMc]

As to exactly how the Holy Spirit orchestrated all of this, I don't think any one can say. I can't explain how it is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me today when he does. But I know that sometimes he has done this as well.

Thank you for your patience and for the honest and informative post.