• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why were ''Gospels'' omitted from the Bible?

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I have no idea what you are even complaining about - there is no contradiction there. The NT is a story composed of many smaller stories - pretty simple, nothing dishonest, nothing to 'back track' or deny. You are focussing on inconsequential semantic minutia. It was never meant to be a completely accurate or comprehensive description. It was hyperbole. Then what are you arguing about? If you accept that my comment was hyperbole - your entire sequence of responses become redundant.Then please focus on that conversation instead.
So, why were certain books considered apocrypha (not genuine) and the Gospels were? The only explanation I've heard is siilarities between books and events, but that doesn't prove a thing. In any power struggle, there are going to be winners and losers. From my studying this subject, it seems clear that there were certain Gospels used by certain denominations that the hierarchy (who eventually won) did not like.

Why do you feel so strongly that this wasn't merely a subjective practice, removing the Gospels that those in charge at the time did not like. It seems far more likely that men at this time would do this rather than to assume they were doing it for the right reasons. When has that ever happened before?!
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
Sure. Of course you could. Careful exegesis could make the Harry Potter books fit. Careful enough exegesis and anything can be harmonised with anything.

Exegesis doesn't have anything to do with twisting or "making" things harmonize. The exegetical process uncovers what the text is. You're thinking of eisegesis, which is not something I waste time on. I've exegeted Thomas. It's obviously from a different source that the synoptics, but does share some source material. It's really no "different" from the theology presented by John.

Sojourner, "exegesis" only is "interpretation" and has nothing to do with how it is portrayed---(i.e.) truthfully or erroneously. That is then seen by the word "eisegesis".
Since you have made an "exegetic" analysis of Thomas and found it "really no different" from John, then there is no need for a duplicate.

Also, The serpent "shared some source material" with Eve, but the core material was contradictory and deadly.
That is why the exclusion of some books. Deadly material still leads to spiritual death. Or as James wrote(2:10)---"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"exegesis" only is "interpretation" and has nothing to do with how it is portrayed---(i.e.) truthfully or erroneously.
It's way more than "interpretation." It critiques the text in question as to it's history, origin, type or writing, author, date, intended audience, language, intent, etc. Interpretations are made exegetically, but exegesis does not generally make value judgments about the texts -- at least not in the way you mean.
has nothing to do with how it is portrayed---(i.e.) truthfully or erroneously. That is then seen by the word "eisegesis".
Actually, eisegesis is highly interpretational. All the word "exegesis" means is "to read out of the text." "Eisegesis," OTOH, means "to read into the text." Generally, the value judgment is part of the eisegetic approach to the text. A value is placed on the text, and then things are read into to the text to make it match the ascribed value.
Since you have made an "exegetic" analysis of Thomas and found it "really no different" from John, then there is no need for a duplicate.
That wasn't the issue, though. Bunyip opined that Thomas presents a theology that is "at odds with Chistian theology." What I meant was that Thomas, when exegeted, does not represent such a departure. There are differences, just as there are differences between Matthew and Mark. But those are similar in their fidelity to Christian theology. They are similar, yet both are included. They are not "duplicates." Neither is Thomas a "duplicate," although it shares some source material with they synoptics -- especially Q.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
sincerly said: ↑Sojourner, Not only are they records of what the Creator GOD has instructed to mankind, but the record of how mankind has dealt with HIM. It is a history which you refuse to accept---instead, preferring to accept the misunderstanding the assumptions of mankind.


Rot. The texts are a library of human origin about God.

"Rot"?? that's what the "texts"/instructions from GOD to mankind reveals will occur when one disbelieves.

It's a pietistic smokescreen I refuse to accept. The history is just fine with me.

Those Scriptures do show one must have a devoted relationship to the Creator GOD to be accepted by HIM. Mankind's history has been not just not devoted, but mostly arrogant/defiant.

sincerly said: -instead, preferring to accept the misunderstanding the assumptions of mankind.

I don't accept your misunderstandings. I accept the considered, studied, and peer-reviewed conclusions of scholars who actually have an idea what they're talking about.

Just as I stated.

sincerly said:
"Biblical criticism" isn't a safe road to travel, because the end thereof is as the scriptures denote---destruction/death.

Balderdash! If it weren't for biblical criticism, you wouldn't have a precious concordance or any reliable interpretations.

Sojourner, aren't you aware that most,if not all,of the concordances have some flaws? It isn't "biblical criticism", but correct exegesis that produces what is valid.
After all, some truth has to be left within the "scholarly work", for the lies, therein, to be believed.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"Rot"?? that's what the "texts"/instructions from GOD to mankind reveals will occur when one disbelieves.
Well, you've certainly disbelieved what the texts are...
Those Scriptures do show one must have a devoted relationship to the Creator GOD to be accepted by HIM.
God is love, and love accepts us just as we are, as a species.
Sojourner, aren't you aware that most,if not all,of the concordances have some flaws? It isn't "biblical criticism", but correct exegesis that produces what is valid.
Sincerely, aren't you aware that the exegetical process includes biblical criticism?
You see? This right here is why I'll take the considered conclusions of peer-reviewed scholarship over your personal ramblings andy day of the week and twice on Sundays. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
It's way more than "interpretation." It critiques the text in question as to it's history, origin, type or writing, author, date, intended audience, language, intent, etc. Interpretations are made exegetically, but exegesis does not generally make value judgments about the texts -- at least not in the way you mean.

Sojourner, what you are doing is assigning a value to your brand of exegesis. The Scriptures allow the context to has that prerogative.
The "serpent" has been in the business of such for a long time.

Actually, eisegesis is highly interpretational. All the word "exegesis" means is "to read out of the text." "Eisegesis," OTOH, means "to read into the text." Generally, the value judgment is part of the eisegetic approach to the text. A value is placed on the text, and then things are read into to the text to make it match the ascribed value.

That's what I wrote---eisegesis---is meant to deceive. It is the/a person who does the "wording" for such deception.
Which can be done by claiming---"exegesis"/interpretation.

That wasn't the issue, though. Bunyip opined that Thomas presents a theology that is "at odds with Chistian theology." What I meant was that Thomas, when exegeted, does not represent such a departure. There are differences, just as there are differences between Matthew and Mark. But those are similar in their fidelity to Christian theology. They are similar, yet both are included. They are not "duplicates." Neither is Thomas a "duplicate," although it shares some source material with they synoptics -- especially Q.

The similarities do not count when there are theological conditions which are detrimental to ones spiritual health.
I said "duplicate" in response to your "really no different".
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Well, you've certainly disbelieved what the texts are...

According to you.

God is love, and love accepts us just as we are, as a species.

Yes, GOD is Love and HE is JUST. The Scriptures have declared all "as filthy rags". Only those who choose to Repent of their sinful practices and submit to the Father's Will by accepting Jesus Christ's shed blood will be "accepted" into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Just being a part of a condemned species will not make it.

Sincerely, aren't you aware that the exegetical process includes biblical criticism?
You see? This right here is why I'll take the considered conclusions of peer-reviewed scholarship over your personal ramblings andy day of the week and twice on Sundays. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

That's your choice and opinion. I'll take the "thus saith the Lord GOD".
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sojourner, what you are doing is assigning a value to your brand of exegesis.
There is no "brand" of exegesis, any more than there's a "brand" of scientific method.
eisegesis---is meant to deceive. It is the/a person who does the "wording" for such deception.
Which can be done by claiming---"exegesis"/interpretation.
One doesn't "claim" exegesis. One either does it or does not do it.
The similarities do not count when there are theological conditions which are detrimental to ones spiritual health.
The similarities are well within the bounds of continuity of thought.
I said "duplicate" in response to your "really no different".
I said "really no different" in response to his "at odds with" statement.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes, GOD is Love and HE is JUST. The Scriptures have declared all "as filthy rags". Only those who choose to Repent of their sinful practices and submit to the Father's Will by accepting Jesus Christ's shed blood will be "accepted" into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Just being a part of a condemned species will not make it.
The species isn't condemned.
That's your choice and opinion. I'll take the "thus saith the Lord GOD".
...Without understanding what it means, apparently.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Christian Greek Scriptures. The writing as well as the collecting of the 27 books comprising the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was similar to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christ “gave gifts in men,” yes, “he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers.” (Eph 4:8, 11-13) With God’s holy spirit on them they set forth sound doctrine for the Christian congregation and, “by way of a reminder,” repeated many things already written in the Scriptures.—2Pe 1:12, 13; 3:1; Ro 15:15.

Outside the Scriptures themselves there is evidence that, as early as 90-100 C.E., at least ten of Paul’s letters were collected together. It is certain that at an early date Christians were gathering together the inspired Christian writings.

We read that “near the close of the 1st cent., Clement bishop of Rome was acquainted with Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth. After him, the letters of both Ignatius bishop of Antioch and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna attest the dissemination of the Pauline letters by the second decade of the 2nd century.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by G. W. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 603) These were all early writers—Clement of Rome (30?-100? C.E.), Polycarp (69?-155? C.E.), and Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E.)—who wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing their acquaintance with such canonical writings.

Justin Martyr (died c. 165 C.E.) in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (XLIX), used the expression “it is written” when quoting from Matthew, in the same way the Gospels themselves do when referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. The same is also true in an earlier anonymous work, “The Epistle of Barnabas” (IV). Justin Martyr in “The First Apology” (LXVI, LXVII) calls the “memoirs of the apostles” “Gospels.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 220, 139, 185, 186.

Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century C.E.) declared: “Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.” Theophilus then uses such expressions as ‘says the Gospel’ (quoting Mt 5:28, 32, 44, 46; 6:3) and “the divine word gives us instructions” (quoting 1Ti 2:2 and Ro 13:7, 8).—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1962, Vol. II, pp. 114, 115, “Theophilus to Autolycus” (XII, XIII).

By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.”

The canonicity of certain individual books of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been disputed by some, but the arguments against them are very weak. For critics to reject, for example, the book of Hebrews simply because it does not bear Paul’s name and because it differs slightly in style from his other letters is shallow reasoning. B. F. Westcott observed that “the canonical authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. lxxi) Objection on the grounds of unnamed writership is far outweighed by the presence of Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) (dated within 150 years of Paul’s death), which contains it along with eight other letters of Paul.

Sometimes the canonicity of small books such as James, Jude, Second and Third John, and Second Peter is questioned on the grounds that these books are quoted very little by early writers. However, they make up all together only one thirty-sixth of the Christian Greek Scriptures and were therefore less likely to be referred to. In this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, “Irenaeus Against Heresies”) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.

The real test of canonicity, however, is not how many times or by what nonapostolic writer a certain book has been quoted. The contents of the book itself must give evidence that it is a product of holy spirit. Consequently, it cannot contain superstitions or demonism, nor can it encourage creature worship. It must be in total harmony and complete unity with the rest of the Bible, thus supporting the authorship of Jehovah God. Each book must conform to the divine “pattern of healthful words” and be in harmony with the teachings and activities of Christ Jesus. (2Ti 1:13; 1Co 4:17) The apostles clearly had divine accreditation and they spoke in attestation of such other writers as Luke and James, the half brother of Jesus. By holy spirit the apostles had “discernment of inspired utterances” as to whether such were of God or not. (1Co 12:4, 10) With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end, and so with the Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his epistles, the Bible canon closed.
- Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Norman: Hi Kolibri, Just curious, Why did the Jehovah Witness Church see fit to create yet another bible?
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
So, why were certain books considered apocrypha (not genuine) and the Gospels were?
There were lots of reasons, some were rejected because they conflicted with the narrative, some were not found until much later, some like Thomas presented theological problems.
The only explanation I've heard is siilarities between books and events, but that doesn't prove a thing. In any power struggle, there are going to be winners and losers. From my studying this subject, it seems clear that there were certain Gospels used by certain denominations that the hierarchy (who eventually won) did not like.
Yes, I'm sure that was sometimes the case.
Why do you feel so strongly that this wasn't merely a subjective practice, removing the Gospels that those in charge at the time did not like. It seems far more likely that men at this time would do this rather than to assume they were doing it for the right reasons. When has that ever happened before?!
I'm sorry, can you rephrase that question please?
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
There is no "brand" of exegesis, any more than there's a "brand" of scientific method.

Then replace "brand" in
Sojourner, what you are doing is assigning a value to your brand of exegesis. The Scriptures allow the context to has that prerogative. The "serpent" has been in the business of such for a long time.
with "opinionated".

sincerly said:
That's what I wrote---eisegesis---is meant to deceive. It is the/a person who does the "wording" for such deception.
Which can be done by claiming---"exegesis"/interpretation.

One doesn't "claim" exegesis. One either does it or does not do it.

Thank you for proving my point---and you did it.

sincerly said:
The similarities do not count when there are theological conditions which are detrimental to ones spiritual health.

The similarities are well within the bounds of continuity of thought.

It is what isn't similar that is outside of continuity and therefore--false. Your answer is just another example of "eisegesis".

I said "really no different" in response to his "at odds with" statement.

It is the "theological differences" which makes Thomas erroneous and not placed with the other accepted books/writings.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
What theological problems did Thomas present?

I Haven't read the book, but Yahoo answers had this site: Why is the Gospel of Thomas left out of the Bible?

and some reasons. This was considered "best".
"Because they determined, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that it is not an inspired work.

In one chapter/verse Jesus says that a woman must become a man to get to heaven.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That doesn't sound like the "Jesus" we know from the true Gospels."

The Creator GOD is NOT a respecter of persons. Deut.10:17; Acts 10:34.
Nor does it sound like Peter.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
sincerly said:
Yes, GOD is Love and HE is JUST. The Scriptures have declared all "as filthy rags". Only those who choose to Repent of their sinful practices and submit to the Father's Will by accepting Jesus Christ's shed blood will be "accepted" into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Just being a part of a condemned species will not make it.

The species isn't condemned.

The "Ye shall surely die" was spoken concerning the Human "species" of animals.

sincerly said:
That's your choice and opinion. I'll take the "thus saith the Lord GOD".

...Without understanding what it means, apparently.

Again, your opinion.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I Haven't read the book, but Yahoo answers had this site: Why is the Gospel of Thomas left out of the Bible?

and some reasons. This was considered "best".
"Because they determined, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that it is not an inspired work.

In one chapter/verse Jesus says that a woman must become a man to get to heaven.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That doesn't sound like the "Jesus" we know from the true Gospels."

The Creator GOD is NOT a respecter of persons. Deut.10:17; Acts 10:34.
Nor does it sound like Peter.
There is no reason to think that these quotes did not come from Jesus apart from it not lining up with the Gospels that were chosen. That is just circular logic.

Couldn't it be possible that the hierarchy was trying to hide or conceal information about Jesus that was not positive?
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
There is no reason to think that these quotes did not come from Jesus apart from it not lining up with the Gospels that were chosen. That is just circular logic.

Couldn't it be possible that the hierarchy was trying to hide or conceal information about Jesus that was not positive?

Then what you are suggesting is the same LIE the Serpent told---"GOD is a liar". You may believe anything that you choose. The Scriptures are still truth.
Why not believe that I have written this while sitting along side Thomas just after he placed his hand in the side of Jesus and called HIM LORD and GOD?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
There is no reason to think that these quotes did not come from Jesus

There is every reason to believe we know little about what the Galilean man said.

The quote you are taking came from 40 years after his death min, by another culture who never knew or witnessed or heard a word he said.

They wrote based on oral traditions that changed and evolved. The authors are all unknown, and every gospel a compilation of pre existing traditions.

Now the traditions they collected were not collections straight from Nazareth or even Galilee for that matter, as he was not the messiah there in these Jewish villages.

These were collections from the Diaspora in Hellenistic communities.

Most of what is in the bible we cannot even tell you if it was John the Baptist teachings, after all that is where Jesus learned many of his parables when he took over Johns movement.

It is my opinion we have for the most part typical Galilean apocalyptic parables same based on Johns teachings, and who knows how few were actually even original to Jesus.

Couldn't it be possible that the hierarchy was trying to hide or conceal information about Jesus that was not positive?

Of course.

We only have a fraction of text that once existed, the early movement was diverse and anything not orthodox was outlawed and much burned or hidden.

Thomas was gnostic and a later aspect of the movement, it has possibilities to go back early but a 150 CE range is more acceptable to me. BUT as a compilation. These were more then likely collected traditions over a long period of time. So some parts could have a possibility to go early. No way we will ever know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsa

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Then replace "brand" in with "opinionated".
Well, that's not really the job of exegesis, either.
It is what isn't similar that is outside of continuity and therefore--false.
I don't understand what you feel is so dissimilar that you don't feel it can be valid? If it's similar -- it's similar. And it is similar -- and within the bounds of continuity. Sounds like you're arguing here just to hear your own head rattle, because all I've gotten so far is "Nuh-uh!"
Your answer is just another example of "eisegesis".
You have no clue, do you! None.
It is the "theological differences" which makes Thomas erroneous and not placed with the other accepted books/writings.
As I stated before, the theology is within the bunds of continuity. What makes Thomas not place with the others is that those who canonized the texts were not aware of its existence when they were undergoing the process of canonization.
 
Top