[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No Marcion didn't start the idea of a canon. The word "canon" is just a transliteration of the greek word "kanon" which means "rule'. It conveys the idea of measure, a test, a straight edge, a critical standard. When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon. Just because Marcion was the earliest person to use the word "Kanon"(that we know of) doesn't mean that before him there was no concept of a canon.

You missed the point, I don't know if Marcion even used the word canon, but he was the first to publish a list saying "these are authoritative". After he did so, others including church fathers followed suit. Before he did, no one else had. When you say "When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon" you are making a claim that doesn't have any support. Using certain writings as authoritative does not equate to set them in a canon.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your the one who is trying to say that since the first known occurance of the word "canon" is Marcion that he is the origin of the idea.

That's not what I said, I said he was the first to make a list, the first to which the idea of making and circulating a list occurred to. I don't even know if he used the word canon.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What I'm saying is that although history doesn't afford us an earlier record we should know by the way the books were treated and reverenced that they were recognized as inspired by God and therefore authoritive.

So because something is reverenced and recognized as inspired by god it's inspired by god? Circular logic is circular.

The Qur'an is treated and reverenced and recognized as inspired by god, therefore it is authoritative. By this reasoning anyway.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

People died upholding the doctrines of those letters. They cast people out of their churches who taught against the doctrines of those books. These books were the basis of their faith and practice.

So? That doesn't speak to the authorship of those books at all.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yet you maintain that no person or congregation had formed an opinion on what particular writings would guide their lives.

Most people were not in a position though to be able to form an opinion.. They didn't have many copies of the books, those were expensive and most of the laity were illiterate anyway. And those in a position to form an opinion did so the same way we do, if it was wildly different than other of Paul's writings they'd question it. They don't have the resources or methodologies or thought processes we do though, so it was easier to fool them.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The canon was complete in about 90 A.D. when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What we don't know is when enough copies of that book and the others were around in order for a church to have collected a copy of all 27 of them.

Nonsense. The church what, had a list of 27 books to fill like a treasure hunt? "Hmm.. now we need a Revelations by John.. everyone go look for that one when someone finds it come back and our collection will be complete."

Please, provide the evidence that of 90 the entire church had decided exactly which writings circulating were the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No. Because churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.

Pure speculation on your part, do you have any evidence? The evidence goes the other way, since Paul specifically addresses so much of his writing to specifically combat incorrect beliefs.. beliefs the churches got from other writings that were known to be circulating at the time.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I would like to see that evidence as well.

Lol what?? You are the one making the claim, you would be the one that (presumably) formed the position based on evidence. So you have no evidence?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?".

Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what can be supported. Speculation isn't evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Certainly Polycarp wasn't the only one to have dealings with the Apostles who survived into the second century. Also we know most of the Jewish converts could read and write. There certainly would have been an abundance of letters testifying to what was occuring. Some of the Apostle's other writings no doubt were also lost.

Speculation isn't evidence. What evidence do you have that most Jewish converts could read and write? What evidence do you have that everyone was writing letters about what was occurring? The Apostles didn't have any writings, they were fishermen and such, such people didn't have either the money or the leisure time to learn to read and write in their own language let alone learn to speak Greek, learn to read and write in Greek, and become educated enough to be able to write a coherent narrative in Greek. You can't just claim they were literate.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.

So your evidence basically boils down to "the letters were authentic because if they weren't they wouldn't have been quoted and would have been rejected"?

That's not evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The how I've explained above. The who would include anyone or church who received a book and didn't know its source. These kinds of letters of inquiry would have no doubt begin in the first century when the scriptures began to be distributed.

The only explanations I've seen are speculative, based on what you think is common sense, which wasn't back then.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sorry wrong quote. I meant IIPet 3:15,16

That makes more sense. No doubt that many churches (especially those that Paul planted) would view Paul's writings as authoritative. 2 Peter is difficult to date and is often dated into the late 1st or even 2nd century, at which time even more people would view Paul's writings as authoritative.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at Polycarp's letter as an example: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/Polycarp...2010-01-05.pdf

Polycarp's letter quotes passages that are from some books that became the NT, but he doesn't name them, and doesn't call them scripture. Polycarp's letter is long after the epistles were penned.

And again that doesn't do anything to establish the authorship.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.

They were excommunicated because they left the doctrine of the group that excommunicated them. Gnostics and probably every other group excommunicated people too, so? Everyone in early Christianity had writings to support their diverse views, it's not at all shocking that the group that "won" and became orthodox preferred writings that supported their views.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What could have happened and what did happen are two different things.

Of course, the difference is the evidence indicates that the authorship of many of the books in the Bible is other than what is claimed (by the book itself, or by tradition).

And we really haven't discussed that part, other than a basic claim by you that the early church would have known and prevented it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is also a thing called providence which tends to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

Why? If someone tries to author a letter under Paul's name will something stop them? No, of course not. Will something stop that letter from being delivered? No. Will something stop the receiver from accepting the letter as authentic? No. What actions can providence take that don't violate someone's free will?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You brought up the canon and Marcion and Origen. I'm just responding to what you've said in order.

Fair enough, lets try to move on to the actual evidence.