My studies of early christianiity are hurting my faith

[jcrichton]

Super question. My humble opinion is that the compilers were lead by the Holy Spirit and if you read some of the ones that didn’t make the cut you (or I when I read them) could see why it was left out…

There was a story about Mary tossing out the bath water and curing people or something like that… Maybe it was true but it just sounded like a story… maybe they wanted more writings by people directly taught and accompanied by Jesus like the other poster said…

Hi!

…I think that the example you posted is partly the reason why the books that did not make the cut were omitted; too many times man lets his imagination go… and while it was a great story (Jesus’s bathwater as a cure-all elixir; it goes against Scriptures that state that the changing of water into wine, at the wedding in Canna, was Jesus’s first miracle).

…people forget that finding contemporary (NT) writings do not make them authentic Revelation!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fred_conty]

I come humbled and seeking advice. I took a theology class this semester in early Christianity. In it we did an entire section which in the course syllabus was described as " books extremely popular in early Christianity which were excluded from the Canon". These books which I read include the Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Didache, 1 Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Protoevangelium of James. I realized reading these and historical context that these books were written during the same period as some New Testament books which were included such as Revelation to John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John. So my question is how can we know that the right books are in the New Testament when we now know that some of these books were included in early manuscripts of the New Testament and quoted among early Christians such as Origin of Alexandria, Iraneus, and even Eusebius seems to have problems speaking of it in his Church History? I feel like I am lost and I shouldn’t be questioning the authority of the Church but I honestly am at times. I feel like the more I seek knowledge the more confusion I feel.

In the thread below, 4th post, give the reasons for selecting certain books.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=294347&highlight=Criteria+for+Canon

 

[po18guy]

Crisis of faith. Spiritual attack. The antidote is prayer before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Nothing heals like one-on-one with the Lord.

 

[Contarini]

I come humbled and seeking advice. I took a theology class this semester in early Christianity. In it we did an entire section which in the course syllabus was described as " books extremely popular in early Christianity which were excluded from the Canon". These books which I read include the Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Didache, 1 Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Protoevangelium of James. I realized reading these and historical context that these books were written during the same period as some New Testament books which were included such as Revelation to John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John. So my question is how can we know that the right books are in the New Testament when we now know that some of these books were included in early manuscripts of the New Testament and quoted among early Christians such as Origin of Alexandria, Iraneus, and even Eusebius seems to have problems speaking of it in his Church History? I feel like I am lost and I shouldn’t be questioning the authority of the Church but I honestly am at times. I feel like the more I seek knowledge the more confusion I feel.

I doubt that the Protoevangelion was written at the same time as canonical books. The Didache, 1 Clement, and maybe Banabas probably were.

What exactly is your difficulty? The Church discerned some writings to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and others not (though some of them remain of great value). I understand why this is a problem for a Protestant, but if you’re a Catholic, why not just trust the Church?

I can think of all kinds of cases where trusting the Church is difficult, but I don’t see the problem here.

Edwin

 

[fisherman_carl]

I come humbled and seeking advice. I took a theology class this semester in early Christianity. In it we did an entire section which in the course syllabus was described as " books extremely popular in early Christianity which were excluded from the Canon". These books which I read include the Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Didache, 1 Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Protoevangelium of James. I realized reading these and historical context that these books were written during the same period as some New Testament books which were included such as Revelation to John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John. So my question is how can we know that the right books are in the New Testament when we now know that some of these books were included in early manuscripts of the New Testament and quoted among early Christians such as Origin of Alexandria, Iraneus, and even Eusebius seems to have problems speaking of it in his Church History? I feel like I am lost and I shouldn’t be questioning the authority of the Church but I honestly am at times. I feel like the more I seek knowledge the more confusion I feel.

St. Paul quotes the book of Enoch in one of his letters, but that book isn’t in Scripture either. Just because a book was quoted by a Church Father or even an Apostle isn’t enough to be considered Scripture. The book had to be written either by an Apostle or a close associate for it to be in the Canon and it had to be considered worthy to be read publicly in the Mass. Hence not every book that was considered profitable for the Christian was part of the canon of Scripture. It makes sense that there would be some books that were still good to read but not considered Scripture. Now, the Orthodox include even more books in their OT, but not the NT.