The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council.

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council. Christanon 04/25/19 (Thu) 15:16:12 8d3bd3 No.800562

An important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but by a broad and ancient consensus. Here we can agree with Bart Ehrman, “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.”*

This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is not just a man-made construct. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.

The same was true for the Old Testament canon. Jesus himself used and cited the Old Testament writings with no indication anywhere that there was uncertainty about which books belonged. Indeed, he held his audience accountable for knowing these books. But, in all of this, there was no Old Testament church council that officially picked them (not even Jamnia). They too were the result of ancient and widespread consensus.

In the end, we can certainly acknowledge that humans played a role in the canonical process. But, not the role that is so commonly attributed to them. Humans did not determine the canon, they responded to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon really chose itself.

Full blog series can be found here:https://archive.li/NjQw9

*Lost Christianities, 231

Christanon 04/25/19 (Thu) 15:57:31 0d7ba6 No.800572

Yes, part of the consensus was diffuse, but it's dishonest to think bishops had no part of it (only those disinclined to never believe in church authority to begin with would ever put forth such a stupid theory). Ehrman has an agenda to paint a narrative where they are out of the picture. He writes diatribe after diatribe about the "Orthodox corruption" of all things Jesus. Even though he's an atheist now, he actually once was a turboprot who graduated from Moody Bible Institute (also known as Retard Dispensationalist HQ) and ALREADY believed in the Prot narrative that dismissed the organizational structure of the early church away. He's just repeated the same things he was taught from the start, except from a more godless perspective (as if he wasn't godless enough to begin with).

I'm actually surprised how seriously people take him. He's no different than Sam Kinison when it comes down to it (also was an aspiring evangelical preacher once). Jesus already warned you about people like this: the seed that falls on rocky ground. Once they get to their degenerate stage, it's just an amplification of what they always were: rootless individuals, who attack tradition.