New Testament apocrypha

[Shiranui117]

Why are some books in the NT and some books equally ancient not?

Because no Christians ever used most of those books.

Why is IS overthrowing mainstream Islam?

"Overthrowing mainstream Islam" is giving them waaayyyy too much credit. They're just a bunch of insane terrorists who are gonna get theirs soon enough.

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas may be 'Gnostic' (Which only seems to have meaning as a term of abuse,) but one only has to compare the corresponding Sayings of the surviving Greek fragments of a couple of centuries earlier to see that the work has undergone considerable redaction. The meaning has been shifted greatly across these few sayings; what was originally written and meant in the rest at present we have no way of knowing. What we can say is the existence of such divergent versions of one text would have done nothing for it's credibility.

Which is a shame. What is left of the Greek version contains a saying that looks to pre-date the received text of Matthew.

No examples or sources for any of this?

Apart from a third to a half of the Pauline corpus, none of the New Testament writings can be attributed to the authors assigned to them by tradition. If they even existed, they would most probably have been dead at the time of writing. They didn't get in the NT because a disciple wrote them; they acquired the authors to give an excuse for them being included.

Having the name of an Apostle slapped onto it doesn't get it included, otherwise we'd have the roughly five trillion Gnostic writings being thrown in the mix. No one knows who wrote Hebrews, not now, not 1700 years ago when the first New Testaments were being put together into one codex, yet Hebrews still got in. And the Gospel of Luke flat-out says that it wasn't written by a person who personally saw or knew Jesus, but was writing down second- and third-hand accounts of the matter.

Didache is instructive. When I reread it some months ago it struck me as resembling Matthew without Jesus. The teaching we are to imagine as coming from the Twelve in Didache seems to have been put into the mouth of Jesus in Matthew. Didache is itself in part a reworked Jewish text.

The only thing it should strike you as resembling is a manual for basic church order. Because that's what it is...

Why is the gospel of John in the NT and even Coptic Thomas isn't? 1:18 is at odds with Genesis and Exodus. No one has seen God, several people have seen Yahweh-Elohim, including Moses and Jacob. Indeed Jacob has wrestled with him: that is the meaning of his alternate name, Israel. 8:44 makes clear what is going on here.

Then why did Moses say that God has no form that we should see Him, right after Moses supposedly "saw" God?

And Jacob wrestled with God disguised as a person, he didn't see God Himself.

We are in the presence of a Two Gods theology; Jesus and his father, God; and the Jews and their father, Yahweh. 'My Bible doesn't say that!' you cry. Go and look at the Greek; translations go to lengths distorting the meaning.

There's no "Two Gods" mythology going on in the Bible, otherwise the vast majority of Christians would have believed in it. The Apostolic Fathers (those leaders of the Church who were companions and students of the Apostles) would have taught it. But we don't see Polycarp saying that, or Clement of Rome, or Ignatius of Antioch, or Papias.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Because no Christians ever used most of those books.

Ah, I see, "No true Scotsman..." There were dozens and dozens of sects proclaiming and adhering to different understandings of Jesus/Christ/God from our earliest records of this saviour god emerging. Paul himself exclaims at one point "Is Christ divided?". He even distinguishes between those "of Paul" and those "of Christ", which is a bit odd. No one would be arguing against competing Christianities if they didn't exist. The heresiologists track their opponents back to Simon Magus. However mistaken this might be; according to Acts, that is co-eval with the disciples.

They're just a bunch of insane terrorists who are gonna get theirs soon enough.

That history isn't written yet. I wouldn't count on the US' own 'God n' Guns' brigade not to decide this is all part of the 'End Times' and necessary to bring on the 'Rapture'. If not IS in particular; there are 'extremist' groups by the dozen intent on wagging the Islamic dog; they seem to have pole position with the ummah; they have guns and the Koran on their side. Improbable yes; but then Islam was an equally unlikely success in the first place.

No examples or sources for any of this?

Both Greek and Coptic Thomas are on-line. It isn't a large amount of text to compare. That is what I did when checking out the argument of April De Conick in Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas andThe Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation.

There are a lot of alternative Christian writings; but hardly five trillion. There were misgivings about more than just Hebrews. The Revelation of Saint John for one. Mark almost dropped out as a redundant epitome; if I remember rightly, it came down to the survival of a single text. In the end of course they came to be seen as quite cheerfully included. Hebrews was attributed to Paul for over a millennia; that was only dropped at the Reformation; and Luther wanted to expunge it all together.

The only thing it should strike you as resembling is a manual for basic church order. Because that's what it is...

I don't disagree with you that Didache is a manual for basic church order. That doesn't disallow it from being adapted from a Jewish Two Ways (which is not in dispute) text or resembling Matthew without Jesus. I am not a Christian (unless a very peculiar one ) so am not prone to seeing these things through those particular spectacles nor would I most likely recognise a church order manual if I fell over one; the resemblance struck me honestly.

And Jacob wrestled with God disguised as a person, he didn't see God Himself.

Alec Guinness was Alec Guinness even when dressed up as Obi Wan Kenobi. Yahweh was Yahweh; not Baal or Dagon.

But we don't see Polycarp saying that, or Clement of Rome, or Ignatius of Antioch, or Papias.

I raise you Origen, Heracleon, Hegomonius, Epiphanius and Augustine. For the full argument, see De Conick, "Why are the Heavens Closed?" in Williams and Rowland (eds,), John's Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic. They are arguing agin' it but I draw your attention to the distortions and down right lying they indulge in doing so.

I can only call 'em as I see 'em. Sorry, , but what's a guy supposed to do?