Why has God let noninspired text comingle with inspired?

[Quath]

Your still missing the issue of Faith. Faith does you no good if you place it in the wrong "truth". I'm not saying that I'm right, but I am saying only God can prove me wrong. To this point, and I talk with Him all the time, He reveal no reason for me to change. 8-)

Fair enough. But does He tell anyone they are wrong? In other words, do you think God would tell a Mormon that they got Him wrong?

If so, then why don't more mormons talk about hearing God say they have the wrong religion?

If not, how do you know that the Mormons didn't get it right?

Or do you think it matters as long as there is a general love of God?

Quath

 

[aiki]

Quath:

The present canon of Scripture is what it is, not because someone said, "Hey, I like this book! It really suits me!", but because each book in the canon met a specific, objective criteria. The Apocrypha, for reasons SomaSight already gave, do not meet this criteria. Catholics may object, but this doesn't alter the fact that the Apocryphal writings don't measure up.

At some point, a Christian must trust that God is able to preserve something as vital as His Word. He wouldn't be much of a God if He couldn't.

The Muslims make their cannon. The Mormons make the cannon. Both groups think they have it right and think theirs are the most consistent version of the Bible. You are just following along in their logic without seeing it for what it is.

Even secular scholars admit that the Bible is in a league of its own. Neither the Muslim "Bible" nor the Mormon one can hold a candle to the literary, historical, moral, philosophical and spiritual contents of The Book. Centuries of careful scrutiny of the biblical text both by secular and religious scholars have provided a very good basis for trusting the veracity of the Bible and acknowledging its divine singularity. The faith of the Christian in the written Word of God is well-founded. Thus, they have better reason, in my estimation, for thinking that they "have it right" as far as scriptural canonicity and inerrancy is concerned than any other religious system.

You seek for unequivocal proof, Quath, that the Bible is divine, but God will give you only evidence that it is. You will walk with Him by faith or you will not walk with Him at all.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Quath]

The present canon of Scripture is what it is, not because someone said, "Hey, I like this book! It really suits me!", but because each book in the canon met a specific, objective criteria. The Apocrypha, for reasons SomaSight already gave, do not meet this criteria. Catholics may object, but this doesn't alter the fact that the Apocryphal writings don't measure up.

I guess I don't follow you. When the Catholics made the Bible, they used a specific, objective criteria as did the Protestants later. Why do you say the Protestants got it right when the Catholics didn't? After all, both groups trusted God to help them do this.

Thus, they have better reason, in my estimation, for thinking that they "have it right" as far as scriptural canonicity and inerrancy is concerned than any other religious system.

I would agree to the point of saying that the more you add, the more likely that you will introduce contradictions. However, I see contradictions in all the different Bibles. So to me, it takes about the same amount of faith to believe inthe Mormon version as it does the Muslim and Protestant versions. (You would probably disagree.)

You seek for unequivocal proof, Quath, that the Bible is divine, but God will give you only evidence that it is. You will walk with Him by faith or you will not walk with Him at all.

Well, I just want some good solid evidence. Nothing I have seen to date is strong enough for me.

Here is a funny quote I heard that this reminded me of

Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.
- Voltaire (1694 – 1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan.

Quath

 

[DivineNames]

Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.
- Voltaire (1694 – 1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan.

:D

 

[Free]

It is probably worth noting the following:

"The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic 'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent."

http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html

This is around 1000 years later than the canonization of the canon which is now used by many Protestants.

For example, how do you know thatthe Book of Thomas should have been included instead of the Book of John?

Do you mean the Gospel of Thomas? There are many reasons to not accept it as canonical including, but certainly not limited to, the fact that it is Gnostic. This is a heresy the early church fought vehemently against.

The Muslims make their cannon. The Mormons make the cannon. Both groups think they have it right and think theirs are the most consistent version of the Bible. You are just following along in their logic without seeing it for what it is.
...
If not, how do you know that the Mormons didn't get it right?

The problem is both Islam and Mormonism are Christian heresies and so should be rejected on that basis alone.

 

[Cure of Ars]

"The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic 'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent."

http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html

This is around 1000 years later than the canonization of the canon which is now used by many Protestants.

Your first sentence is misleading and you second sentence is not true. Ecumenical Council’s only define things when there is confusion on a doctrine or when it is challenged. There was no need before 1500 to formally define the canon because Christians were in agreement. It was only after Luther took the Deuterocanonical books out of the Bible and place them in the back of the KJV did the need arise to formalize the apostolic tradition of the canon.


Show me where the protestant canon was canonized 1000 years before?
Show me the correct listing of the protestant canon by any Christian before 1500?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The Synod of Carthage, a follow-up to the one at Hippo, is where the list of canon was agreed upon.

Here is canon 24 of that synod

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.


Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

source: CCEL.org

Notice anything in the above list that seems out to place to certain eyes?

The only items in dispute at the close of this synod were Epistle to Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Ultimately, they were accepted, as we know.

 

[Quath]

Do you mean the Gospel of Thomas? There are many reasons to not accept it as canonical including, but certainly not limited to, the fact that it is Gnostic. This is a heresy the early church fought vehemently against.

You are right, I meant the Gospel of Thomas.

That is is very Gnostic also makes it interesting. For example, what if the Gnostics were right? People just voted them wrong. Maybe God was evil and His creator was the good one? Maybe humans should be considered a son of God just as Jesus was?

Since we have shown that people guided by the Holy Spirit can come up with different Bibles, why not wonder how different they can get?

Quath

 

[LottomagicZ4941A]

What I was told about the Catholics haveing more books in their Bible is that us prostents left out the ones that Christ did not quote.

That is all I know on this subject. And even this is just from informal inquiry.

 

[Vic C.]

It was only after Luther took the Deuterocanonical books out of the Bible and place them in the back of the KJV did the need arise to formalize the apostolic tradition of the canon.

Impossible. You must have made that up. Lurher died in 1546 A.D. February 18; less than two months before the Apocrypha were canonized. Hmmm. 8-)

 

[Vic C.]

Notice anything in the above list that seems out to place to certain eyes?

Yes I do, OC. The list says, "The Revelation of John". :o

 

[Free]

Your first sentence is misleading and you second sentence is not true. Ecumenical Council’s only define things when there is confusion on a doctrine or when it is challenged. There was no need before 1500 to formally define the canon because Christians were in agreement. It was only after Luther took the Deuterocanonical books out of the Bible and place them in the back of the KJV did the need arise to formalize the apostolic tradition of the canon.

In other words, I am pretty close to being correct. To say that "there was no need before 1500 to formally define the canon because Christians were in agreement" misses the whole point of having a canon. Also, why didn't the RCC canonize the rest of the Bible in 1546, why only the Apocrypha? Or, if the canon was formalized back at Carthage as Orthodox Christian claims, then why the need to reformalize the Apocryphal books and only them? Something isn't right there.

I hope everyone realizes where the word "apocrypha" comes from and what it means. Just because the term was changed to "deuterocanonicals" doesn't hide the fact that the books are essentially of unknown origins.

You are right, I meant the Gospel of Thomas.

That is is very Gnostic also makes it interesting. For example, what if the Gnostics were right? People just voted them wrong. Maybe God was evil and His creator was the good one? Maybe humans should be considered a son of God just as Jesus was?

Since we have shown that people guided by the Holy Spirit can come up with different Bibles, why not wonder how different they can get?

Quath

First, the Gnostics were wrong. Their texts are dated much later than the texts of the Bible and are shown to be dependent upon them, particularly the four gospels.

Second, just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't make them a Christian. Similarly, just because someone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that they are. I think the history of the RCC makes this pretty clear.

Third, you have not at all "shown that people guided by the Holy Spirit can come up with different Bibles". No Christian follows the leading of the Holy Spirit at all times. Again, I think the history of the RCC makes this pretty clear.

 

[Quath]

First, the Gnostics were wrong. Their texts are dated much later than the texts of the Bible and are shown to be dependent upon them, particularly the four gospels.

I don't think that is what is accepted. From Wikipedia:

Many elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian, and it is generally accepted that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but grew up alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many of today's scholars are convinced that the Gospel of Thomas was used by 1st Century gnostics as well as by writers in the Johannine tradition whose interpretation of the person and meaning of the Christ led to the developed doctrine of the 3rd and 4th-century Christian church. Other gnostic texts make no mention of Jesus or other Christian figures.

Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories of the true nature of Jesus or the Christ which were out of step with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith. For example, Gnostics generally taught docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but rather his apparent physical body was an illusion, and hence his crucifixion was not bodily.

Second, just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't make them a Christian. Similarly, just because someone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that they are. I think the history of the RCC makes this pretty clear.

Do you think these people believed they were guided by the Holy Spirit? If so, then how does one truly know when they are led by the Holy Spirit and when they are not? For example, how would they know that the Holy Spirit did not guide them to the correct cannon of the Bible?

Third, you have not at all "shown that people guided by the Holy Spirit can come up with different Bibles". No Christian follows the leading of the Holy Spirit at all times. Again, I think the history of the RCC makes this pretty clear.

I am being loose with the term since I don't really believe in the Holy Spirit. Maybe a better way to say it is "people who believe they are led by the Holy Spirit."

So lets look at a hypothetical. Imagine in 50 years, someone comes up with a new Bible. Say they take Jefferson's who got rid of Paul or they accepted some previously rejected books and rejected some currently accepted ones. These people will say that the Protestants were not let by the Holy Spirit when they made their Bible just as the Catholics were not led by the Holy Spirit. And thus a new "truth" is born.

In other words, how do you convince others that your beliefs are from the Holy Ghost while all other people saying they were led in a different direction are wrong?

Quath

 

[Soma-Sight]

The Apocrypha, for reasons SomaSight already gave, do not meet this criteria.

The main problem I see with this whole argument is man formulating doctrine BEFORE deeming certain texts as inspired.

That is why the Gnostics were "heretical", the apocrypha "unsubstantiated".

It was due to previously formulated doctrinal issues rather than intrinsic validity.

Did you know that the FIRST gospel, that of Mark was written many years after the crucifixtion and the author cannot even be proved to be that of Mark?

It was orally handed down and translated as such.

So why is it that the Gnostics are all labeled heresies under that same logic?

That the author is unknown?

 

[Cure of Ars]

In other words, I am pretty close to being correct. To say that "there was no need before 1500 to formally define the canon because Christians were in agreement" misses the whole point of having a canon. Also, why didn't the RCC canonize the rest of the Bible in 1546, why only the Apocrypha? Or, if the canon was formalized back at Carthage as Orthodox Christian claims, then why the need to reformalize the Apocryphal books and only them? Something isn't right there.

I hope everyone realizes where the word "apocrypha" comes from and what it means. Just because the term was changed to "deuterocanonicals" doesn't hide the fact that the books are essentially of unknown origins.

First off let me say that when I said that your last post was misleading I did not mean that this was on purpose or to infer anything in regards to your character. I read what I wrote and it could easily be read in that way. I apologize if this is the case. Let me see if I can explain the situation. I don’t know if Orthodox Christian would agree but we will see.


The councils that deal with the canon are the following;

The council of Rome in 382, The council of Hippo in 393, and the council of Carthage in 397 and 419 and Trent.


Technically these councils were not ecumenical (except the council of Trent). But a good argument can be made that the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage although not ecumenical councils were binding and infallible because the Popes put there authority behind these councils. I don't know if this is the case. At any rate the council of Trent, an ecumenical council, also reaffirmed these earlier councils when they produced the infallible canon due to Luther taking some books out of the bible. Let me give some reference material to back what I am saying up.

Because it was granted the authority of papal approval, just as Ecumenical Councils historically were. Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the councils of Hippo and Carthage (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405 (he also reiterated this in 414). Carthage and Hippo were preceded by a Roman Council (382) of identical opinion, and were further ratified by Pope Gelasius I in 495, as well as the 6th Council of Carthage in 419.

The Protestant reference work, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 232)

A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232)

I got the above quotes here;

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ115.HTM

Patristics scholar William A. Jurgens, writes about the Council at Rome in 382:
Pope St. Damasus I is remembered as having commissioned Jerome's translation of the Scriptures . . . St. Ambrose of Milan was instrumental in having a council meet in Rome . . . in 382 A.D. . . . Belonging also to the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. is a decree of which three parts are extant . . . The second part of the decree . . . is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D., and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, . . . It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. In regard to the third part . . . opinion is still divided . . . The text of the Decree of Damasus may be found in Mansi, Vol. 8, 145-147; in Migne, PL 19, 787-793 . . . (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 1 of 3, 402,404-405)

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3975/canon.htm

Also, why didn't the RCC canonize the rest of the Bible in 1546, why only the Apocrypha?

The council of Trent did the entire canon. Go here to see the text.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

Or, if the canon was formalized back at Carthage as Orthodox Christian claims, then why the need to reformalize the Apocryphal books and only them?

If it was formalized back in the earlier councils (which could be the case depending on how you look at it) it was still needed at that time period of the council of Trent to make known the correct bible because there was confusion because of Luther.

 

[Cure of Ars]

This is from a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC that I know.

I would first like to point out that the Catholic Church, both east and west, rejected the decision of the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90 A.D.) when they excluded the seven books (Sirach, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, First and Second Maccabees, and Baruch) and the additions to Daniel and Esther from the Old Testament. The Catholic Church never accepted the Rabbinic canon of the Old Testament; instead, she used the Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of the Old Testament; and in doing this, the Church was following the example of the authors of the New Testament itself, who had done the same thing in composing the four Gospels and the various epistles.

Invariably the New Testament authors, when quoting the Old Testament, quote from the LXX, and not from the Hebrew text. That is why, if you look at the Epistle to the Hebrews (10:5-7) it does not agree with the Old Testament reading of Psalm 40 found in most modern translations of the Bible. The differences in the text of Hebrews 10:5-7 and Psalm 40:6-8, which the book of Hebrews is quoting, are due to the fact that the modern translations of the Old Testament are made from the Hebrew text, while the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not quoting the Hebrew text, but is instead quoting the LXX. So, Hebrews 10:5-7 says: "Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.' Then I said, 'Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God, as it is written of me in the roll of the book.'" While the text of Psalm 40:6-8 says: "Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. Then I said, 'Lo, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.'" The author of the book of Hebrews has quoted the LXX, because that text makes the point he is trying to get across, i.e., that the incarnation was necessary, and that Christ became man in order to become a sacrifice for sin. This idea would not be conveyed by quoting the Hebrew version of Psalm 40, which speaks of an "ear" not a "body."

The differences between the Hebrew and LXX versions of the Old Testament were not a problem for the early Church, because the early Church never accepted the decision of the Rabbis at Javneh, and never accepted the idea that the Hebrew version was superior to the Greek LXX. In fact it was not until the Reformation that the seven books in question were dropped from the canon. The Protestant Reformers chose to use the Jewish canon and in the process they rejected the Christian canon of the Old Testament, which had been canonically defined and universally accepted at the end of the 4th century. Ironically, the Reformers accepted the canon of the Old Testament established by the Rabbis, the very men who denied that Jesus was the Christ, and who also excommunicated the followers of Christ as heretics at that same council.

It is important to note that the Church has always accepted the canonicity of the seven additional books found in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. These seven books were included in the canon of scripture issued by the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D., and were again included in the canonical decisions issued by the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). The Catholic canon of the Old Testament was also formally recognized by Pope Innocent I in a letter he wrote to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D., and then the canon was yet again reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D., and this council was solemnly approved by Pope Boniface shortly after the council concluded. The Catholic canon of the Old Testament, once again including the seven additional books and the additions to Daniel and Esther, was implicitly reaffirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in 787 A.D., and was explicitly confirmed and the books were once again enumerated at the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 A.D., and it should be remembered that that council affirmed the canon of scripture 65 years before the Reformation even began. Later the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.), and the First (1870 A.D.) and Second Vatican Councils (1962-1965 A.D.), reaffirmed the canonical status of the books rejected by the Protestant Reformers.

Clearly then, the constant tradition of the Church, both in its practice and in its conciliar decisions, accepted the canon of the Old Testament which contains the seven books rejected by the Reformers.

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.ph ... ntry355346

 

[Orthodox Christian]

In other words, I am pretty close to being correct. To say that "there was no need before 1500 to formally define the canon because Christians were in agreement" misses the whole point of having a canon. Also, why didn't the RCC canonize the rest of the Bible in 1546, why only the Apocrypha? Or, if the canon was formalized back at Carthage as Orthodox Christian claims, then why the need to reformalize the Apocryphal books and only them? Something isn't right there.

First, allow me to say that the canons of the Synod of Carthage are readily available in English online. I would be glad to link you on request, Free.

There is and was some difference between the Christian West and East regarding canon, just as there is between the East and the Copts.

It comes down to language. The East read the Septuagint from the beginning until now (we still use it, and have no official English translation). The West, ca. early 5th century, needed a translation for the Latins, and guess who got the job? Saint Jerome. It was he who coined the term 'apocrypha' (hidden) to describe books that weren't in the Hebrew manuscripts, but were in the Septuagint

I hope everyone realizes where the word "apocrypha" comes from and what it means. Just because the term was changed to "deuterocanonicals" doesn't hide the fact that the books are essentially of unknown origins.

So is much of the Old Testament- take Job, for example. Even the works attributed to Solomon, David, and Moses were just as likely about, rather than by. Psalms by the sons of Korah- now pinpoint those authors.

To say nothing of Hebrews, 2 and 3 John

The deuterocanonicals, so-called in the West, are labeled such because they are given secondary prominence in liturgical reading. They are considered, for the most part, more informative than revelatory.

Could not the same thing be said for large portions of the Hebrew scriptures- all those geneologies, census numbers, obscure dietary laws, and so forth. They're in there because they tell the story. So does Maccabbees.

You are right, I meant the Gospel of Thomas.

That is is very Gnostic also makes it interesting. For example, what if the Gnostics were right? People just voted them wrong. Maybe God was evil and His creator was the good one? Maybe humans should be considered a son of God just as Jesus was?

Since we have shown that people guided by the Holy Spirit can come up with different Bibles, why not wonder how different they can get?

Quath

First, the Gnostics were wrong. Their texts are dated much later than the texts of the Bible and are shown to be dependent upon them, particularly the four gospels.

Gnostic documents were rejected as canon because they did not fit the strict criteria required of canon. Do not forget that very popular and mainstream epistles, such as didache and Clement were also rejected, though they had clearly ancient origin and had been read in the churches at least back to the beginning of the second century.

Perhaps we could have a thread dedicated to the discussion of Gnosticism? I've got a pretty good grasp of who they were, where they came from, and so forth. That way we could stay on track here with discussion of canon.

Second, just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't make them a Christian. Similarly, just because someone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that they are. I think the history of the RCC makes this pretty clear.

I would agree that there have been individuals in the Catholic Church who claimed to be led of God, but clearly were not. The same can be said of individuals in every little Christian group, right up to this day.

 

[Cure of Ars]

The East read the Septuagint from the beginning until now (we still use it, and have no official English translation).

This is very cool. Orthodox Christian, do you speak Greek? I wish i spoke Latin. All I really know is this phrase;

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

I wish I knew more. :

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The East read the Septuagint from the beginning until now (we still use it, and have no official English translation).

This is very cool. Orthodox Christian, do you speak Greek? I wish i spoke Latin. All I really know is this phrase;

[quote:cf050]Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

I wish I knew more. :[/quote:cf050]
Hi Cure:

I have little money, and I might recommend a trebouchet over a catapault. :wink:
I read biblical Greek. My knowledge of modern Greek is very limited.

I am a Reader in the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Chicago, so it has been necessary for me to develop a working knowledge of Greek and of the Byzantine hymnology.

ad maiorem Dei gloriam
Iakovos/James