Is the Canon of Scripture incomplete??

[Shermana]

Pegg said:

you need to define what you think constitutes a 'divinely inspired' account as opposed to an everyday account reported on by someone who thought it would be a good idea to make a note of what was going on.

The question was for you to provide a historical source of which you base this historical accuracy on to compare to.

“Here, then, I will make an end of writing; if it has been done workmanly, and in historian’s fashion, none better pleased than I; if it is of little merit, I must be humoured none the less.”—2 Maccabees 15:38, 39, Kx.
Does this sound like someone who thought they were writing a divinely commissioned memoir?

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it? Do you think "See what large letters I write with!" is?

well, The Muratorian fragment states that the 'Shepherd' could be read but made it clear that it was not a part of the cannon. That gives us some clue that as early as the beginning of the 2nd century, christians knew which letters were a part of the inpspired record and which were not.

No, the Muratorian canon simply says that it cannot be classed among the Prophets or the Apostles (Gospels and Epistles). It would thus be in the category of works like Revelation. Nothing about it not being inspired. You really need to look things up before you make assertions. With that said, it also simply proves that there was some group using the Muratorian fragment. Additionally, it simply says that "SOME OF US" will not allow the Apocalypse of Peter to be read. What it shows is that there was a dispute about Apocalypse of Peter. That's it. However, Clement considered AoP to be just fine. Why was he wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria appears to have considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1), describes a lost work of Clement's, the Hypotyposes (Outlines), that gave "abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean the book of Jude and the other general epistles. Also the Epistle of Barnabas and that called the Revelation of Peter."[10] So the work must have existed in the first half of the 2nd century, which is also the commonly accepted date of the canonic Second Epistle of Peter.[11] Although the numerous references to it attest to its being once in wide circulation, the Apocalypse of Peter was ultimately not accepted into the Christian canon. Thus the disappearance of every single manuscript of the work is perhaps not entirely coincidental

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

nd therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

The apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly too , but it was ordered to be rejected as false according to 'Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231

It was rejected by the emerging Orthodox community, which in no way proves that they were right about it. It was nonetheless in wide circulation before then. You constantly make the assumption that because a prominent figure says something, it somehow means that was the defacto truth. The Nazarenes used the Gospel of Peter, so why were they wrong but the Orthodox was right? I think you're under a confirmation bias that the Orthodox fathers had some Divine sense of what was right as opposed to what the changing fashions of the time were.



.

Tertullian reports that the writer of “Acts of Paul” was punished for posing as a first-century writer in De Baptismo 17. And in a letter written by Theodore of Egypt in the fourth century the apocryphal writings are referred to as “the lying waters of which so many drank,”

I'm not too sure about Acts of Paul, but you really need to consider that perhaps these Church Fathers' condemnation of other writings may not be as authoritative as you'd like it to be.

So the Christian community was aware of false teachers and writings that spread false information...they knew what was authentic and inspired and what was not and they were very careful to protect the integrity of the canon.

Correction: The emerging Orthodox community was aware of several circulating writings which some declared to be authentic while others declared to be heretical. There's simply no reason to believe that Tertullian was right on this, or that Clement and Iraneus were wrong. You're confusing Orthodox rhetoric with logic.

sorry, dont stone me just yet

Do you deny that you haven't actually read it?

i read something completely the wrong way...i just realized it said he 'attacks theories which he considers dangerous'

Where did you read this? Are you basing your opinion on Sirach from an apologetic website or from an actual reading of the text? I'd like to at least see the source for where you got those assertions about Sirach.

i thought it was saying he was the promoting those things. But just so you know, it doesnt make me suddenly think he must be an inspired writer. the mark of inspiriation is not simply in having correct teachings...if that were the case I could write a book myself based on the bibles teachings and i'd be able to proclaim myself inspired by God.

So why include Proverbs? Sirach was writ according to the Talmud, so what's the difference with Proverbs? Just because Josephus didn't mention it?

 

[Pegg]

So why include Proverbs? Sirach was writ according to the Talmud, so what's the difference with Proverbs? Just because Josephus didn't mention it?

why include the sayings of King Solomon into the inspired record??? really?

Why include the sayings of the man who was given Godly wisdom and understanding? Does the Talmud say that the proverbs are inspired?