Being gay and raised Christian sucks.

[Kulindahr]

Not that such things should really matter, I just find it funny that we still have people within my church that literally think God handed the 27 books to the local scribe the day Jesus ascended.

Oh, and being gay and raised Christian still sucks

Really? Who are these strange people? For such bizarre thoughts are contrary to established fact.

Those 27 books were in Olde Englishe, too.

Actually, that level of ignorance is a major part of why being gay and raised Christian sucks!

I'm glad I'm a Christian, but I wish I'd learned to suck earlier.


Kalli, there are numerous such people. Sarah Palin might claim otherwise, but hers is church where that is essentially what is believed. Their view of inspiration isn't much different from the writers being possessed by the Spirit of God, who took the pen and used their brains and vocabulary to write the words.

I've always found that insulting both to the writers and to God.

 

[Kulindahr]

Serious or sarcastic? Methinks sarcastic. . . however. . . Unfortunately, early church history is not something that is taught in my church. It's more of the here it is, go forth and read. I keep wanting some series on the books that didn't make it into the canon, why they didn't make it, and how those that made it in, made it in. I can only guess it's too uncomfortable for some people to think about and discuss.

I took a course called "The Canonization of the New Testament". The first day of class, at the end we got a reading list for the first group seminar, ten days away: 1200 pages. That wasn't bad enough; some of it was in German and Latin.

I think that's when I discovered the wonder of "team translation"....

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not really a salvation issue anyway. . . I think it's much more important that we have faith that the books that made it in are the books that were intended to make it in. The process shouldn't be a formation on which a religion or a faith is based. I think it would be nice, however, if my church taught the process that did occur.

The process can be boiled down simply like this: even while Paul was still writing his letters, and the first Gospel was still being composed, different churches began exchanging copies of the letters they'd received from Paul, and listing "what is read", i.e. things their church considered something to base teaching on. Most of Paul's letters were on those lists when Peter did some writing, and then the Gospels started appearing (Matthew c. 45 A.D. being the first).

By the time the last apostle died (c. 100), each church had its own list of "what is read", and they'd already started comparing. When lists differed, groups of churches often had little councils to swap what they differed on and consider it, and often arrived at a "what is read" list for their area. In other places, bishops made the decision, sort of as a referee. Lists began to encompass larger and larger areas, until we find the most famous list, that from Athanasius, bishop/patriarch of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. Once he'd done that, as a very high-level churchman, others started looking to assemble the lists for their bishoprics -- the bishop of Rome made one, and others did (references are made, but the lists are lost to us). Rome's list matched that of Athanasius, and when things finally came down to some councils, all they did was say, "Hey, these are the books on everyone's lists, so y'all read them".

Of course that leaves out all the arguments and vitriol, but it's essentially what happened. It also leaves out the fact that even among the books on Athanasius' list there were disputed ones, as I've noted before.

 

[kallipolis]

The process can be boiled down simply like this: even while Paul was still writing his letters, and the first Gospel was still being composed, different churches began exchanging copies of the letters they'd received from Paul, and listing "what is read", i.e. things their church considered something to base teaching on. Most of Paul's letters were on those lists when Peter did some writing, and then the Gospels started appearing (Matthew c. 45 A.D. being the first).

By the time the last apostle died (c. 100), each church had its own list of "what is read", and they'd already started comparing. When lists differed, groups of churches often had little councils to swap what they differed on and consider it, and often arrived at a "what is read" list for their area. In other places, bishops made the decision, sort of as a referee. Lists began to encompass larger and larger areas, until we find the most famous list, that from Athanasius, bishop/patriarch of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. Once he'd done that, as a very high-level churchman, others started looking to assemble the lists for their bishoprics -- the bishop of Rome made one, and others did (references are made, but the lists are lost to us). Rome's list matched that of Athanasius, and when things finally came down to some councils, all they did was say, "Hey, these are the books on everyone's lists, so y'all read them".

Of course that leaves out all the arguments and vitriol, but it's essentially what happened. It also leaves out the fact that even among the books on Athanasius' list there were disputed ones, as I've noted before.

Well, distilled!

 

[hvk1989]

Well, distilled!

I couldn't agree more!

Those 27 books were in Olde Englishe, too

You mean, it wasn't originally written in the King's english.

Actually, that level of ignorance is a major part of why being gay and raised Christian sucks!

Indeed, which is one of the main reasons I find myself where I find myself.