Quote:
Originally posted by Colin
There is no such thing as "the Bible" devoid of Church influence though. If you read a history of how the New Testament was compiled you'll see that it is a hodgepodge of various thoughts and influences who in the period 100 A.D. - 370 A.D. or so and with many twists and turns for the most part were able to agree upon a standard New Testament.
Why were some books canonized and others weren't? Why do we read Matthew and Mark but not Thomas or the The Infancy Gospel? All of these books enjoyed popularity in various parts of the region and in various churches. Why were there purposeful (and accidental) deletions and additions especially during this time?
The most influential of the early church leaders, various "free thinkers" and various sects all debated each other and competed to get their beliefs canonized. Various councils of Bishops took votes on canonization and various Roman emperors lent considerable prestige to the views they most agreed with. Not beung hunted by the empire did a lot for your popularity. Of all the early Christian sects it was the Roman church, naturally, which understood this best.
|
don't get your undies in a twist dude, calm down... I was referring to the Roman Catholic church as we know nowadays. I think it is emphasizing the part of the church in religion way too much. The traditions used in the Roman Catholic church are sometimes in contradiction to the Bible and I do take the Bible above this.