http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/NewTe ... Canon.html
How and in what way happened the birth of the New Testament and the Canon? There are various teaching and comprehension about it. The birth of the Canon is very interesting and also very often understood insufficiently. I bring forth issues which show that common teaching for the birth of New Testament is an erroneous conclusion. I challenge you to read and look over this writing very carefully, because it can lead you from the tradition to the truth. The Bible says that prove (test) all things, hold fast that which is good. Test this writing with the Bible and hold fast to the good and reject that which is not Biblical.
The New Testament Canon
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
No matter what an anti-traditionalist/historical revisionist site says, there is a pretty clear consensus given as to the devolopment of the NT, from both secular and Christian sources. I think the major fact that Christians need to understand is that the NT, as we have it today, was not magically "there" right after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven. It was a long process, with various books accepted and later rejected, and rejected books later accepted. The NT canon, as we have it today, was not offically codefied as such until Athanasius in the 4th century. Books such as the 1st Letter of Clement of Rome, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, were originally accepted as canon by the majority of the church, but later rejected as canon, but still accepted as "pious reading". Some texts, such as a few of the Infancy Gospels, were originally accept by at least a margin of early Christians, but later rejected outright. And there were books, that are part of the canon today, which were orginally rejected, such as 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation. And contrary to what some fundamentalists think, the bible did not appear in 17th century English in 1st century Palestine.
