What writings were left out of the Bible

[Linus]

it was THE DECISION that made them authentic, not the reverse.

How so? It seems that one could see the authenticity of a certain scripture, then make the necessary decision. Not making a decision and then saying that they are authentic based on that. Do you see what I mean?

Don't get me wrong, Scott. I completely agree with the decisions made, and why certain books were included in the Canon, and why some were not. It seems that once you compare the Holy scriptures with those that were rejected it is easy to see why they were thrown out. But just because a bunch of people say they are authentic, doesn't make them authentic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wonder since he was an historian then if that is why most of his writings match Biblical accounts?

Have you ever considered actually reading Josephus?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But just because a bunch of people say they are authentic, doesn't make them authentic.

Actually, that was precisely what made them "authentic".

 

[Quiddity]

How so? It seems that one could see the authenticity of a certain scripture, then make the necessary decision. Not making a decision and then saying that they are authentic based on that. Do you see what I mean?

Not at all. There were several different books circulating in Christian churches. Does that sound like it was easy to see authenticity? By all means take a stab at it. I've read other books and it's not an easy task. Putting trust in the Church was the normative means of guidance.

Don't get me wrong, Scott. I completely agree with the decisions made, and why certain books were included in the Canon, and why some were not. It seems that once you compare the Holy scriptures with those that were rejected it is easy to see why they were thrown out. But just because a bunch of people say they are authentic, doesn't make them authentic.

Easy? Is there a scholar in the house? As I said take a stab at it and you tell me if it's easy. Leave it to ones own faculties alone then we would have all sorts of Bibles.
Just like interpretations..

~Victor

 

[blueman]

I must admit that this is new to me; one wonders how the decisions were made on authenticity.........

Decisions were made based on the teachings of Jesus in 1st century Palenstine. Remember, these teachings were being promulgated by the disciples and those they were discipling as well. The teachings could be tried and tested by people who were also witnesses to said events during the time the gospel was being spread and the church was evolving.

 

[Linus]

Not at all. There were several different books circulating in Christian churches. Does that sound like it was easy to see authenticity? By all means take a stab at it. I've read other books and it's not an easy task. Putting trust in the Church was the normative means of guidance.

But that sort of reasoning is all backwards. LIke I said, just because some people say it's true, does not, in any case, make it true. Not to me. It's authentic because it proves itself to be so when compared to the other texts. Putting faith in the church is all well and good, but to believe something just because they tell you too is a little beyond reason from my point of view.

Easy? Is there a scholar in the house? As I said take a stab at it and you tell me if it's easy. Leave it to ones own faculties alone

then we would have all sorts of Bibles.
Just like interpretations..

I'm speaking generally. Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas? Or the Gospel of the Holy Twelve? They are obviously innacurate portrayals of Jesus' character and teachings, and any person who can compare the texts reasonably will come to that conclusion.

Look, this is my point: In general, a reasonable person is more or less capable of seeing the truth.

 

[Quiddity]

But that sort of reasoning is all backwards. LIke I said, just because some people say it's true, does not, in any case, make it true. Not to me. It's authentic because it proves itself to be so when compared to the other texts. Putting faith in the church is all well and good, but to believe something just because they tell you too is a little beyond reason from my point of view.

Is believing Christ walked on water a little beyond reason?
Is believing Christ resurrected a little beyond reason?


You can pick and choose all you want Linus but I’ll take a guided Church’s view on the matter of the Canon. It’s almost sounds like you thought the proper books glowed with authenticity. There was disagreements about it and difficult to tell for many.

I'm speaking generally. Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas? Or the Gospel of the Holy Twelve? They are obviously innacurate portrayals of Jesus' character and teachings, and any person who can compare the texts reasonably will come to that conclusion.

Compared to what Linus?

Look, this is my point: In general, a reasonable person is more or less capable of seeing the truth.

I agree here alright. But where you fail is trying to reason out things of Christianity where one is not able to.

``Victor

 

[fromthe heart]

Have you ever considered actually reading Josephus?

Perhaps that would be a good idea since I know nothing of them except that they have some parts matched with biblical accounts. You are a smart person Deut...so what am I missing here???

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, that was precisely what made them "authentic".

Sounds pretty much to me the same rationale that made orthodoxy "orthodox." The winners write the history, and there's no way of getting around it.

 

[Katzpur]

But that sort of reasoning is all backwards. LIke I said, just because some people say it's true, does not, in any case, make it true. Not to me. It's authentic because it proves itself to be so when compared to the other texts.

Oh, that's way, way too logical, linus!

 

[painted wolf]

"this book is dedicated to my dearest Candy... all charactors herein are fictional and any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental."

sorry I couldn't help myself... it was a joke from the show "Red Dwarf". :162:

heh...

wa:do

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

there are certianly NO writings past the days Jesus walked the earth that I would even consider as truth...

Uh, given that ALL of the New Testament was written well after Jesus walked the earth, I fear that if you consider yourself a Christian, then you've set yourself an impossible standard!

If someone came up with a new set of gospels today that is supposed to have been delivered divinely I would hold the suspect mainly due to what the scriptures say about such things.

Such new scriptures definitely do exist! In particular, the Baha'i scriptures, which comprise fully 200 volumes of what we consider Divine Revelation! And I humbly suggest that if you'd care to examine them, you'd find them far more Godly, beautiful, and inspirational than you apparently think! You can find them at:

www.reference.bahai.org

and anything written by the first three authors listed there is Baha'i scripture.

Further, I put it to you that what you overlook is that the Old Testament also contains a prohibition against adding to the scripture! (it's in Deuteronomy 12:32). So it becomes clear that the prohibition applies to us, and that God is (unsurprisingly) perfectly free to reveal more scripture whenever He pleases.

And as to "what scriptures say" about this, the facts are these: Christ commanded us to seek, and I Thessalonians 5:21 commands proving ("testing") all and holding fast to that which is good, so I humbly suggest that the desireability of doing this is manifestly clear! The more so since as Jesus promises, "by their fruits ye shall know them" as well as "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit" (and vice versa). These, when combined with the specific list of fruits in Galatians, make things pretty clear, I think.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[michel]

Further, I put it to you that what you overlook is that the Old Testament also contains a prohibition against adding to the scripture! (it's in Deuteronomy 12:32)

12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.​

http://catholicity.elcore.net/BibleOnlyVersesNot.html sees it as being a pointer towards Sola Scriptura.......​

Moreover, the warning is that we must not add anything to “the words” of this book, nor take “words away” from this book. This injunction, then, is not a warning against adding to, or detracting from, the teachings presented in Revelation: they are a warning against tampering with the text of Revelation — sort of a “copyright notice,” worded in the strongest possible terms because of the nature of the work.

Even if someone would like to interpret “words” as a figurative way of referring to doctrine, still “this book” refers only to Revelation, not to the whole Bible.

Other Verses Cited

Others biblical verses are sometimes quoted, too, as teachings of Sola Scriptura. Our pattern of analysis has already been established, so these passages will be addressed only very briefly.

I. Deuteronomy 12:3226

See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it


Whilst http://www.biblebb.com/files/GR952.htm Lays an interpretation of beware of False prophets.........

At the very beginning of Israel's history as an independent nation, God delivered the people from Egypt. Next, the Mosaic law is given to shape and direct them as a nation. In Deuteronomy 13, God gives a strong, clear warning about the danger of false prophets who will arise among the people. Deuteronomy 12:32 ends by saying, "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." The context is the absolute finality of the revelation given by God. You add nothing, and you take away nothing. Deuteronomy 13:1-2 begins by saying, "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true... " Now that is impressive! He gives a particular prophesy and that prophesy comes true, but his teaching encourages you to depart from the living God! What did God instruct the people to do? Verse 3: "you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." You shall follow the Lord God and fear Him. You shall keep His commandments and listen to His voice. Serve Him; cling to Him, but that false prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.
​

So therefore, Bruce, I would advocate that the point you are making is not 'in unison' with the above two interpretations.....
​

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

Bruce, I would advocate that the point you are making is not 'in unison' with the above two interpretations.

I don't doubt for a minute that my point isn't in agreement with LOTS of interpretations, but it still stands nonetheless!

Which is that BOTH the Jewish and Christian scriptures contain such prohibitions! So anyone objecting to--say--the Baha'i scripture because of the New Testament prohibition sets him- or herself up for parallel condemnation because by the same tokwn, the Christian scriptures can be seen as a similar violation of the prohibition in the Tanach (Jewish scriptures). "Fair is fair."

Fortunately, stipulating that God always has the right to reveal scripture solves the dilemma very nicely! . . .

Many regards,

Bruce

 

[michel]

Hi!




Which is that BOTH the Jewish and Christian scriptures contain such prohibitions!


Bruce

Even though one of the references I gave was from the Catholic point of view ?

 

[Quiddity]

The winners write the history, and there's no way of getting around it.

What do you mean by this?

``Victor

 

[michel]

What do you mean by this?

``Victor

The ones with 'political' clout (Theologically) are right?

 

[spacemonkey]

What do you mean by this?

``Victor

I think it means that you only get the side of the story the winner tells. What we know of the Punic Wars comes from Rome, not Carthage.

 

[Katzpur]

I think it means that you only get the side of the story the winner tells. What we know of the Punic Wars comes from Rome, not Carthage.

Right.

 

[Quiddity]

Right.

Oh ok. Gotcha....what do you think about this? Right, wrong, or divine providence?

~Victor