I haven't read the entire thread, but were the gnostic gospels mentioned? Especially the gospel of Thomas? It is widely excepted that it is the codex for Mark. I do believe that the Bible is not the complete work of scriptures that originally influenced early christian ideology because of the advent of the catholic church and the influences that were behind it. There is a lot yet to learn about that time period.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Other Books?
- Thread starter Pard
- Start date
francisdesales
Member
Neo said:
Yes, Neo, I did mention the Gospel of Thomas, as well as other contemporary writings of the first and second century that didn't make it into the canon, whether they were considered orthodox or not. Obviously, there was a selection process done by the Church to put together this so-called "Bible".
I do agree that there are other writings that were influential for orthdoox Christians but didn't make the Bible, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the first letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and the writings of Ignatius, just to mention writings within 100 years after Christ.
Regards
A-Christian
Member
Francis,
You have provided an incredible service throughout this entire thread. You logic, reasoning, and citations have truly laid a foundation for others to build on. It is very evident that you post tirelessly, not for yourself, but for those that read these threads. I myself read this thread from beginning to end and there were many great comments from others as well. This has been a great thread for all and thanks Pard for starting this topic.
You have provided an incredible service throughout this entire thread. You logic, reasoning, and citations have truly laid a foundation for others to build on. It is very evident that you post tirelessly, not for yourself, but for those that read these threads. I myself read this thread from beginning to end and there were many great comments from others as well. This has been a great thread for all and thanks Pard for starting this topic.
francisdesales
Member
Thanks, I appreciate your comments and glad that someone learned something by reading this thread.
Regards
Regards
A true believer's heart will tell him or her anything they want to know. If you truly believe in God and truly believe His word then you will know His voice when you hear it.
God has said over and over to not listen to the teachings of men but to only listen to Him. Once you have God truly in your heart you don't need any book, and sorry to say, you don't absolutley need the bible either. God teaches us and He places those teachings directly in our hearts.
For example, I read "The Gospel of Mary" and I knew in my heart it is garbage. I knew because it did not sound like God's voice. Simple enough.
I would never tell anyone to read or not read books. God said "Come, let us reason together." He want's us to use our intellect but he also said "Be as harmless as doves but wise as serpents."
God has said over and over to not listen to the teachings of men but to only listen to Him. Once you have God truly in your heart you don't need any book, and sorry to say, you don't absolutley need the bible either. God teaches us and He places those teachings directly in our hearts.
For example, I read "The Gospel of Mary" and I knew in my heart it is garbage. I knew because it did not sound like God's voice. Simple enough.
I would never tell anyone to read or not read books. God said "Come, let us reason together." He want's us to use our intellect but he also said "Be as harmless as doves but wise as serpents."
francisdesales
Member
Nonsense. Who doesn't think they are a true believer?
This amounts to "what I think must be true". Sounds like something Adam and Eve would say in the Garden as they were munching on the forbidden fruit...
No matter how much your heart says something, you can be totally wrong. Whether something is part of the bible or not has nothing to do with whether you "feel it". Mormons have a "burning in their bossom" when they read the "book of Mormon". That doesn't make it Scriptures from God.
Regards
Examine your own heart. Why do you look at this in the way you do?
I did not mean "true believer" according to MY understanding. I meant it in the sense of actual truth. For example, when I saw the "laughing Revival" I knew it was false. When I see Robert Tilton, I know he is false. I know it in my heart, not based on my own limited understanding but by balancing them against what God (Jesus) said. I knew david Koresh was a false prophet the moment I saw him (he claim the be the sinful messiah, Christ)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_claimed_to_be_Jesus. Long before he led those people to their deaths. I knew it because Jesus SAID if any claims to know where Christ is to not believe them.
<< Matthew 24:23 >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"At that time don't believe anyone who tells you, 'Here is the Messiah!' or 'There he is!'
King James Bible
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
[1.] There should appear false prophets (v. 11-24); the deceivers would pretend to divine inspiration, an immediate mission, and a spirit of prophecy, when it was all a lie. Such they had been formerly (Jer. 23:16; Eze. 13:6), as was foretold, Deu. 13:3. Some think, the seducers here pointed to were such as had been settled teachers in the church, and had gained reputation as such, but afterward betrayed the truth they had taught, and revolted to error; and from such the danger is the greater, because least suspected. One false traitor in the garrison may do more mischief than a thousand avowed enemies without
Now, how is it that so many people who spent many hours in the word, following the teachings of a man could ignore these words?
They chose to listen to man over God.
You can think my spiritual life is based on my own importance and ego but you'd be wrong. I don't claim to know it all and there are plenty of areas I am uncertain in but I know the "still small voice" is not me and I listen to it.
That voice, if it were me, would not encourage me to humble myself and give the last bit of food to someone else when i am hungry. (actually happens) It would never encourage me to put others above myself as a matter of course.
In conclusion, I think we waste too much time critisizing and not enough time looking inward at ourselves to address our own faults. While I understand that you as well as some others might think it's dangerous to think the way I do, and with some people you'd be correct, it is just as dangerous to think that some never "get it". Jesus said i am the way, the truth and the life. Facing the truth whether we like it or not is a large part of what He teaches. You may not like giving one of your coats away to one who has no coat but Jesus taught it. I have heard many explain that away saying that Jesus didn't mean that literally. Well, the truth is He did mean it literally. My heart bears witness with it.
francisdesales
Member
Walter,
You are missing my point. I said "who doesn't think THEY are a true believer". In other words, we all think we are "true" belivers. That would include, the "laughing Revival" or "Robert Tilton". They believe they are true followers of God in their warped interpretations. Thus, such means are poor methods of determining what is Scripture and what is not.
Mormons think they are true believers. So do Muslims. They have different bibles, do they not???
Your entire answer revolves around you interpreting things from your point of view - which can be incorrect views. Members of cults think they are right. It doesn't make it so.
That has little to do with knowing what is part of the Bible and what is not part of the Bible.
Men are deluded, thus, this "burning in my bosom" is insufficient to objectively determine the canon of Scriptures.
Regards
I am speaking only for myself. I think you are missing my point. I strive to know God's teachings and no other. Of course sometimes I'm wrong and i have to guard against thinking i know when i could be wrong. Knowing i could be wrong is a large part of keeping my feet on the correct path.
One thing I know i'm not wrong about though is that there is a God and I ain't Him.
One thing I know i'm not wrong about though is that there is a God and I ain't Him.
francisdesales
Member
Walter,
The thread is about knowing what is the canon of Sacred Scriptures, objectively speaking. Not "which books I think are part of the Bible, in my opinion". The "laughing Revival", no doubt between bouts of chuckling, strive to know God's teachings, interpreting them according to their own paradigm.
Naturally, the entire idea of Sacred Scriptures presume the existence of God.
Regards
Isn't that precisely what the The Council of Jamnia and the Council of Nicaea did?
Decided which books should be in, in their opinion?
francisdesales
Member
Historically, no on both accounts...
However, your question is based upon proper understanding of the situation on how canon is formed - the COMMUNITY decides, based upon their understanding of what is the Word of God. This authority is accepted by the rest of the community and their canon becomes sacred to that community. This is not the same thing as you or I determining it. This is objective, because we personally do not decide the contents of Scriptures. As an outsider, a person must then decide whether God Himself DID guide that community's decision to canonized Scriptures properly.
Regards
dadof10
Member
Are there any books currently in our NT that you would consider uninspired? You mentioned some books (the Gospel of Mary, for example) that are uninspired. Are there any books you think...sorry...feel should be included in Scripture that are being excluded?
Sorry, I couldn't log in yesterday and I regret i only have a few minutes here. Yes there are books I think should have been included.
The Shepherd of Hermas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eusebius of Caesarea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Shepherd of Hermas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eusebius of Caesarea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
dadof10
Member
I don't have much time lately either, so I'll be brief. Do you have any solid criterion for your acceptance of the Shepherd, or do you rely on pure feelings? I'm not sure why you mention Eusebius here. do you feel all of his writings are inspired?
As far as I'm concerned, Walter, your method of discerning what books belong in Scripture is as good as any other Protestant's method. The difference is, others use their "method" and come to the exact same conclusion as the Catholic Church (for the NT, anyway) as to the list of inspired books, while trying to deny the Church's infallible authority in this matter. You take yourself and your subjective feelings as the authority, and so do they. So you have a "fallible list of infallible (we think) books."
Unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority to guide us to which books belong and which don't, how are we to know? Feelings?
I agree with you but I take issue with people who expect me to go along with the way things are done because that's the way things are done.
I read the Shepherd. That's why I include his writings among the inspired.
Eusebius is another matter, but I definitely believe his writings are enlightening.
Man is fallible. I know that and I accept that and I will never put my spiritual well-being in the hands of man.
Agree with me or don't, but many of the people who have claimed authority over the church were never given authority by God. I'll take my chances just relying on Him instead of man.
I read the Shepherd. That's why I include his writings among the inspired.
Eusebius is another matter, but I definitely believe his writings are enlightening.
Man is fallible. I know that and I accept that and I will never put my spiritual well-being in the hands of man.
Agree with me or don't, but many of the people who have claimed authority over the church were never given authority by God. I'll take my chances just relying on Him instead of man.
francisdesales
Member
Walter,
I understand what you are saying. However, is that the authority paradigm in the New Testament? We are subject to authorities, placed their by God, according to Jesus (Pilate, Pharisees) and Paul (elders, government, etc). God placed these authorities over us for the purpose of becoming humble as Christ, who submitted Himself, even from the womb, to those "beneath" Him in "rank". Learn from our Savior, Walter, and grow from what God has done for our sake regarding this.
I don't agree with the Shepherd, but Clement to the Corinthians and Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, I think are all fulfilling spiritually and do not disagree with what the Church teaches. Shepherd was written too late, really.
Regards.