Why Apochyphal/Gnostic writings are not part of Canon

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is the true meaning of the phrase "begging the question" (it does not mean "raising a question")... a logical fallacy of circular reasoning: the bible says it is correct and true, so it is. No writing can prove itself.

Item # 5 is especially suspect.

I find #4 to be the big one myself, because I think it presupposes a conclusion about what the message of "the whole" is. If two passages conflict, then all we can say is that (at least) one of them is wrong; without more information, we can't say which one is wrong.

And if book A disagrees with books B & C (that agree with each other), who's to say that that B and C aren't the ones that are wrong? Numbers don't necessarily imply correctness.

 

[Pegg]

The deal is, someone wrote the apocrypha and gnostic books. Someone used these books as holy books for their faith and religion. Therefore, they are holy just like any other Bible book.

They were inspired by divine, and inspired people in their faith, just as much and can't be rejected any more than the books in the canon. If the canon is divinely inspired, then the other books are. If the other books are not, then the canon is neither. They all stand and fall on the same premise that they were relished and used in worship for people's faith.

so you believe any writing which claims divine authorship or revelation is to be viewed as such? You dont think there should be defining features to prove it?

If i write something and claim Vishnu directed me, we can add my writing to the Vedic scriptures? Or I can write something and add it to the Bhagavad Gita and claim one of the hindu gods told me to add it in there because the message is from him?

 

[Pegg]

That really is how they originally came to be sifted through. Mark, Luke and whatnot were in the pile with the rest of popular texts that did pass a much later committe approval. There were far more that were popular and used by Christian churches that the central committee in Rome then had committee meetings over to make administrative designs over in their discussion groups. That is how the Bible came to be.

When the christian church was first established, they already had an existing bible... it was the books spoken of by Jesus as 'the law the Pslams and the Prophets' of the Hebrew canon. Hence the complete canon of the Hebrew Scriptures preceded the Christian church, and the church was established on them.

The writings that you are referring to are the 'christian greek scriptures' ... they are the books that were disputed among christians for the reason that unauthorized christians were producing books and claiming them to be divinely inspired.

The need arose for the christians to clearly state which writings were produced with the authority of the apostles behind them... they are the books which became part of the already existing Hebrew canon. Apocryphal writings were excluded, and rightly so because the factor in this case was actually what had been written and/or accepted by the 12 Apostles as an accurate and true statement of their beliefs/practices and history.

 

[Shermana]

the law the Pslams and the Prophets

Where does Ruth and Esther and Proverbs fit in with that?

Is Song of Solomon part of the "Psalms"?

I doubt that Chronicles and Kings would neatly fit in with the "prophets".

How about your favorite, Ecclesiastes?

 

[Me Myself]

There is a reason why not all 'scripture' made it into the Bible Canon. Some have tried to include apocryphal and gnostic scriptures into the bible canon, but those books have never been viewed as part of the inspired record. So why do some books get included and some rejected as being inspired?

The meaning of 'canon' (Greek ka·non&#8242 applies to a a tool for measuring in the scriptures. When applied to the books of the bible, it literally means the writings which can be used as a guide for what is true and inspired and worthy to be used as a straightedge in determining the right faith, doctrine, and conduct.

Any book claiming to be inspired of God should demonstrate this by what the book contains.
1. The document must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth. It should turn people to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth.

2. It must give evidence of inspiration by holy spirit and demonstrate the holy attitudes of that spirit.

3. There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God.

4. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God.

5. The writings should give evidence of accuracy (ie historical/geographic/timing/prophecy) down to the smallest details



For the reasons stated above, the apochryphal/gnostic writings were always excluded as part of the canon for the reason that they do not prove to be in harmony with this process. They often show contradictory teachings and ideas. For example, the Gospel of Judas paints him as a loyal and faithful disciple who was following through on Jesus request to turn him over to the chief priests. This obviously disagrees with the Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke regarding Judas as the 'Betrayer'.

If anyone would like to discuss why they believe the apocryphal or gnostic writings should be included, please state your reasons and show how they adhere to the 5 points above. And if anyone would like to discuss the process of how the cannon was chosen in the first place, feel free.

Omg, this is completely ridiculous. The 4 gospels contradict each other multiple ocassions, and also have obvious historical discrepancies, like believing humanity was here no longer than around 6000 years ago, which is evidenced to be wrong.

I am honestly astounded you write such a thing as something serious

 

[Me Myself]

So your position is that all the books of the canonical Bible meet all five of these tests?

How does the zombie invasion of Jerusalem described in Matthew 27:50-53 meet test #5?

Heck, how does Revelation meet any of those tests?

I would love a rply to this too.

 

[Pegg]

Where does Ruth and Esther and Proverbs fit in with that?

Is Song of Solomon part of the "Psalms"?

I doubt that Chronicles and Kings would neatly fit in with the "prophets".

Ruth has never been challenged by any authority as uncanonical . Ruth has always been recognized by the Jews as part of the Hebrew canon and fragments of the book were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. And unlike other apochrypal book, Ruth actually harmonizes completely with Jehovah’s Kingdom purposes as well as with the requirements of the Law of Moses.

Esther was universally accepted by the Jewish people and it is believed to have been included in the Hebrew canon by Ezra the copiest, who would certainly have rejected a fable. To this day, the Jews keep the feast of Purim, or Lots, in celebration of the great deliverance in Esther’s time....thus the account is based on fact, its historically accurate in its details about ancient persia and its king at the time...there is no reason to reject it.

Proverbs shows itself to be in unity of thought when compared with the Law of Moses, Jesus’ teaching, and the writings of Jesus’ disciples and apostles. James even uses principles of the proverbs in his own counsel, thus showing he viewed it as a good guide for living. There is no reason to reject it.

Song of Solomon was never challenged either. The jews accepted it as part of the Hebrew scriptures as is evidence by the fact that they had it translated in the Septuagint. Josephus also inserted it in his catalog of the sacred books. All this is evidence that the jews accepted it as part of the Hebrew canon.

Chronicles is a book recalling the jews back to faithful worship....it contains some of the most beautiful expressions of praise to Jehovah to be found in all Scripture and has been treasured by Jews and Christians alike through the ages. Ezra was a priest of Jehovah who had been authorized by the king of Persia to appoint judges and teachers of the law of God (as well as that of the king) and to beautify the house of Jehovah. He proves himself devoted to that task and he wrote Chronicles as a full account of the nation’s history up to that time. Why would anyone want to reject it?

How about your favorite, Ecclesiastes?

Ecclesiastes has always been accepted as part of the hebrew canon. What reasons do you see to reject it?

 

[Shermana]

Ruth has never been challenged by any authority as uncanonical . Ruth has always been recognized by the Jews as part of the Hebrew canon and fragments of the book were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. And unlike other apochrypal book, Ruth actually harmonizes completely with Jehovah’s Kingdom purposes as well as with the requirements of the Law of Moses.

That's not the subject. You said that Jesus confirmed the Canon by the "Laws, psalms, and prophets". Ruth has indeed been challenged by many scholars. Ruth does not harmonize at all, it's a major controversial issue that prompted the Talmudists to say "A moabite but not a moabitess", apparently not concerned with Ezra and Nehemiah. The argument is that Ruth converted to Judaism, which has no substantiation. Is Ruth Psalms, Law, or Prophets?

It was most likely made as an attack on the Ezra-Nehemiah position. That's the general scholarly opinion apparently. It was meant to directly contradict previous scripture.

Date of Composition.
According to Bewer the Book of Ruth is later than H., i.e., it is post-exilic. This view of the date is for other reasons held by many scholars (e.g., Kuenen, "Historische Bücher des Alten Testaments," i., part 2, p. 195; Cornill, "Einleitung," p. 241; Nowack, l.c.; Bertholet, l.c.; and Kautzsch, "Literature of the Old Testament," p. 129). The days of the Judges are referred to as a time far past (i. 1), and even the law of Deut. xxv. 5 et seq. is referred to as a custom now obsolete (comp. Ruth iv.7); the language of the book contains several Aramaisms(e.g., , i. 4; , i. 13; and , iv. 7); the interest in the genealogy of David (iv. 20 et seq.) is thought to indicate a date when David had become the ideal of the nation; and the evident interest of the author in the marriage of an Israelite with a Moabitess—an interest in sharp contrast to the law of Deut. xxiii. 3 et seq. as well as the procedure of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra ix., x., and Neh. xiii. 23 et seq.)—indicates that the author of Ruth was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah and wrote the book to show that their opposition to foreign marriages was contrary to ancient and most honorable precedent.

Although Driver ("Introduction," p. 427) urges that the general beauty and purity of style of Ruth indicate a pre-exilic date, holding that the Davidic genealogy at the end is probably a later addition, the post-exilic origin of Ruth seems to be confirmed by its position among the "Ketubim," in the third part of the canon. The view which makes it a tract against the marriage policy of Ezra and Nehemiah seems most probable

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12947-ruth-book-of

Whether it's been accepted by the Rabbinicists as Canon is not the question at stake here.

Esther was universally accepted by the Jewish people and it is believed to have been included in the Hebrew canon by Ezra the copiest, who would certainly have rejected a fable. To this day, the Jews keep the feast of Purim, or Lots, in celebration of the great deliverance in Esther’s time....thus the account is based on fact, its historically accurate in its details about ancient persia and its king at the time...there is no reason to reject it.

You're avoiding the question again. You said that Jesus confirmed the canon by "Law, Psalms, and and Prophets".

Proverbs shows itself to be in unity of thought when compared with the Law of Moses, Jesus’ teaching, and the writings of Jesus’ disciples and apostles. James even uses principles of the proverbs in his own counsel, thus showing he viewed it as a good guide for living. There is no reason to reject it.

Again, you're changing the subject. Is Proverbs Laws, Psalms, or Prophets, or none of the above?

Song of Solomon was never challenged either. The jews accepted it as part of the Hebrew scriptures as is evidence by the fact that they had it translated in the Septuagint. Josephus also inserted it in his catalog of the sacred books. All this is evidence that the jews accepted it as part of the Hebrew canon.

You seem to confuse the issue of "Never been challenged" with what I'm asking. Would you like to retract that the entire canon is summarized by "Laws, psalms and prophets" instead of changing the subject? Which one of the three categories is Song of Solomon? A Psalm?

Chronicles is a book recalling the jews back to faithful worship....it contains some of the most beautiful expressions of praise to Jehovah to be found in all Scripture and has been treasured by Jews and Christians alike through the ages. Ezra was a priest of Jehovah who had been authorized by the king of Persia to appoint judges and teachers of the law of God (as well as that of the king) and to beautify the house of Jehovah. He proves himself devoted to that task and he wrote Chronicles as a full account of the nation’s history up to that time. Why would anyone want to reject it?

Did you honestly not understand what the purpose of me contesting your idea that Jesus summarized the canon by "Law, Psalms and Prophets"?

Ecclesiastes has always been accepted as part of the hebrew canon. What reasons do you see to reject it?

This is completely false, and there is very little scholarly argument if any that says it was actually written by Solomon. Ecclesiastes was in fact contested and it only won out later, with very shoddy arguments, I've been over this.

Now is it Psalms, Law, or Prophets? If prophets, then please prove that it was written by a Prophet other than appealing to tradition. And recent tradition at that.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5415-ecclesiastes-book-of

The canonicity of the book was, however, long doubtful (Yad. iii. 5; Meg. 7a), and was one of the matters on which the school of Shammai took a more stringent view than the school of Hillel; it was finally settled "on the day whereon R. Eleazar b. Azariah was appointed head of the assembly." Endeavors were made to render it apocryphal on the ground of its not being inspired (Tosef., Yad. ii. 14; ed. Zuckermandel, p. 683), or of its internal contradictions (Shab. 30b), or of a tendency which it displayed toward heresy—that is, Epicureanism (Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, viii. 68b); but these objections were satisfactorily answered (see S. Schiffer, "Das Buch Ḳohelet," Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1884). It was assumed that Solomon had taken the name "Ḳohelet," just as he had taken the name "Agur" (Prov. xxx. 1), as a collector (see, further, Eppenstein, "Aus dem Ḳohelet-Kommentar des Tanchum Jeruschalmi," Berlin, 1888); and probably the Septuagint rendering represents a theory that the name contained an allusion to I Kings viii. 1, where Solomon is said to have gathered an assembly.

So much for "Always accepted".

 

[Pegg]

That's not the subject. You said that Jesus confirmed the Canon by the "Laws, psalms, and prophets".

the the traditional Jewish canon was divided into 3 parts, the law, prophets & 'Psalms' which was the first book of the 3rd section.

The Law (The Pentateuch)
 1. Genesis
 2. Exodus
 3. Leviticus
 4. Numbers
 5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets
 6. Joshua
 7. Judges
 8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)
 9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)

The Writings (Hagiographa)
14. Psalms
15. Proverbs
16. Job
17. The Song of Solomon
18. Ruth
19. Lamentations
20. Ecclesiastes
21. Esther
22. Daniel
23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)
24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)

This is what the completed hebrew canon consisted of in the first century....its the canon as is testified to by the 1st century historian Josephus too.

Ruth has indeed been challenged by many scholars. Ruth does not harmonize at all, it's a major controversial issue that prompted the Talmudists to say "A moabite but not a moabitess", apparently not concerned with Ezra and Nehemiah. The argument is that Ruth converted to Judaism, which has no substantiation. Is Ruth Psalms, Law, or Prophets?

It was most likely made as an attack on the Ezra-Nehemiah position. That's the general scholarly opinion apparently. It was meant to directly contradict previous scripture.

the Talmud was written after the destruction of the Temple...it was written as a new set of instructions for living as Jews without a priesthood and temple. You can't use the instructions of the talmud as a reason to do away with the canon which was confirmed by the priesthood. The priesthood had authority, what authority did those who wrote the Talmud have? Zilch.

They can dismiss Ruth all they like, but you have to realize they are doing it based, not on the Law of Moses, but on their own rules that they established without the direction and guidance of a priesthood.

The fact is that Ruth became a proselyte and married according to the law on repurchaser and brother-in-law marriages. That is a record that no one can dismiss for she is in the family line of King David as a result. If you want to remove her from the bible, you will have to remove King David as well.

ECCLESIASTES, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

So much for "Always accepted".

and yet the book was still kept at the temple as part of the sacred canon... once again you seem to be putting a lot of stock on people with no legitimate authority on such matters.

 

[Shermana]

the the traditional Jewish canon was divided into 3 parts, the law, prophets & 'Psalms' which was the first book of the 3rd section.



This is what the completed hebrew canon consisted of in the first century....its the canon as is testified to by the 1st century historian Josephus too.

Okay, therefore the canon is NOT divided into "Law, Psalms, and Prophets", but "Law, Writings, and Prophets".

(PS Josephus used 1 Esdras) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1esdras.html

the Talmud was written after the destruction of the Temple...it was written as a new set of instructions for living as Jews without a priesthood and temple. You can't use the instructions of the talmud as a reason to do away with the canon which was confirmed by the priesthood. The priesthood had authority, what authority did those who wrote the Talmud have? Zilch.

You're not getting my drift. I'm talking about Ruth totally contradicts the earlier writings. Not even close to what I'm talking about. I brought up the Talmud as an example of the shoddy reasoning that was employed to attempt to reconcile Ruth, which Jewishencyclopedia flat out admits is deemed to have been written as a reaction to directly contradict Ezra-Nehemiah.

They can dismiss Ruth all they like, but you have to realize they are doing it based, not on the Law of Moses, but on their own rules that they established without the direction and guidance of a priesthood.

Did you not understand what I meant? They are not the ones dismissing Ruth. Ruth violates your own criteria! This is standard scholarly opinion! The Talmud merely attempts to reconcile it.

The fact is that Ruth became a proselyte and married according to the law on repurchaser and brother-in-law marriages. That is a record that no one can dismiss for she is in the family line of King David as a result. If you want to remove her from the bible, you will have to remove King David as well.

The fact is we have no idea if Ruth became a prosleyte, and the only way for the story to NOT violate Torah and Ezra-Nehemiah, which scholars say it was intended to violate in the first place, was for her to not be a Moabite in the first place but merely an Israelite in the land of Moab, which is not the standard opinion.

The idea that you must remove King David if you remove Ruth is yet another logical fallacy. Ruth is not needed whatsoever to certify David as King. It was intended to say "See, even the Israelite King came from a Moabite, take THAT Ezra-Nehemiah and Torah!". Your own criteria of no contradictions is shot down.

and yet the book was still kept at the temple as part of the sacred canon... once again you seem to be putting a lot of stock on people with no legitimate authority on such matters

Ah, by all means please explain who has "legitimate authority". So now you're changing your story to that it can be canonical if its accepted by "Legitimate authority". So enlighten everyone who this "legitimate authority" is. Apparently you give the Rabbinical Jews "legitimate authority" in this sense, but not to their opinion on the NT I presume? Or did their "legitimate authority" reign only before Jesus? Why didn't the school against Ecclesiastes have such authority?

Guess what other book was held as Sacred Writ until it was discluded much later...

http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/08/jewish-talmud-calls-book-of-sirach.html

Sirach.



No comment on the rest of that? Any comment on all the other issues like Jesus visiting the souls of the Flood generation in Hades or Paul wishing castration on his enemies or did you leave those alone for a reason?

 

[Pegg]

The idea that you must remove King David if you remove Ruth is yet another logical fallacy. Ruth is not needed whatsoever to certify David as King. It was intended to say "See, even the Israelite King came from a Moabite, take THAT Ezra-Nehemiah and Torah!". Your own criteria of no contradictions is shot down.

Ezra was the one who compiled the canon... he wasnt disputing Ruth so why should anyone else?

Ah, by all means please explain who has "legitimate authority". So now you're changing your story to that it can be canonical if its accepted by "Legitimate authority". So enlighten everyone who this "legitimate authority" is.

In the 15th century bce, it was Moses and his predecessor and the priests and levitical preisthood

in the 2nd temple era it was Ezra the priest and copyist...the collection was maintained by the priesthood as was mandated in the mosaic law.

after the temple was destroyed, there was no priesthood and no more authority... so the talmud is not something that can be used to discredit the authority of the earlier scholars or priests or prophets.

Apparently you give the Rabbinical Jews "legitimate authority" in this sense, but not to their opinion on the NT I presume? Or did their "legitimate authority" reign only before Jesus? Why didn't the school against Ecclesiastes have such authority?

judaism has no authority over the writings of christians, just as the christians had no authority over the writings of judaism or the hebrew scriptures. Christians didnt write the hebrew scritpures anymore then rabbinical judaism wrote the books of the Greek scriptures.

what authority does Shammai have? Even the rabbis apparently agreed that his rulings on anything did not stand... so if he did reject Ecclesiastes, this would explain why nobody else rejected it. It was still in the canon in the 1st century according to Josephus, so the point is moot.

Guess what other book was held as Sacred Writ until it was discluded much later...

Sirach.

Sirach was not included in the traditional hebrew canon by the Priesthood. why not?

and i know i've mentioned this before, but it does contradict the hebrew scriptures for it says: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.”
I honestly dont believe that is possible when you consider that a human baby develops from the sperm, not the egg. Why do you think the family name is only carried on through the male? Is it not because the sperm, which is from the man, is what develops into a human? And for that reason, sin has not come from the egg of the woman but from the sperm of the first man. And that is what the NT says about sin "from one man sin entered into the world and death through sin..."

 

[Shermana]

Ezra was the one who compiled the canon... he wasnt disputing Ruth so why should anyone else?

Let be more clear:

Ruth contradicts the Torah and Ezra-Nehemiah. We don't know if Ezra included Ruth in the Canon. Your own criteria is voided by Ruth. Would you like to prove to everyone reading that he did?

In the 15th century bce, it was Moses and his predecessor and the priests and levitical preisthood

in the 2nd temple era it was Ezra the priest and copyist...the collection was maintained by the priesthood as was mandated in the mosaic law.

Okay, so after you're done proving that Ezra canonized Ruth, as well as Ecclesiastes, feel free to prove why the mainstream Priesthood maintained the correct tradition for everyone reading, and why the Dead Sea Scroll community didn't. And while you're at it, please explain to the class why the levitical priesthood and aaronites had such authority to determine canon while you're explaining what proof we have that they did indeed determine Ruth and Ecclesiastes to be canonical before Josephus's time.

after the temple was destroyed, there was no priesthood and no more authority... so the talmud is not something that can be used to discredit the authority of the earlier scholars or priests or prophets.

And then, feel free to prove that the Priesthood by Josephus's time had the same opinions on Canon as the priesthood in Jesus's time. And why not the Essene's views who may have been behind the Dead Sea Scrolls?

judaism has no authority over the writings of christians, just as the christians had no authority over the writings of judaism or the hebrew scriptures. Christians didnt write the hebrew scritpures anymore then rabbinical judaism wrote the books of the Greek scriptures

Okay, so then you will have to prove that the Priesthood had the exact same canon as after the Temple was destroyed. You seem to be saying that Rabbinical Jews have authority when it suits you but not apparently over Christian writings? Who made this dividing line? Who gets authority over the Christian writings exactly?

what authority does Shammai have? Even the rabbis apparently agreed that his rulings on anything did not stand... so if he did reject Ecclesiastes, this would explain why nobody else rejected it. It was still in the canon in the 1st century according to Josephus, so the point is moot.

Okay, so you are now giving authority to Jews after Jesus? Make up your mind. Do the post-Temple Rabbis have authority or not? Now you're saying that they are. Do you know at what date the authority of Ecclesiastes was officially confirmed as the defacto belief? The point is far from moot. You have blatantly contradicted yourself.

Sirach was not included in the traditional hebrew canon by the Priesthood. why not?

Proof please. Please prove that the pre-Rabbinical Priesthood rejected Sirach, I'd love to see it. And Josephus will not count. That's nearly a century afterwards. And Josephus used 1 Esdras, again.

and i know i've mentioned this before, but it does contradict the hebrew scriptures for it says: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.”
I honestly dont believe that is possible when you consider that a human baby develops from the sperm, not the egg. Why do you think the family name is only carried on through the male? Is it not because the sperm, which is from the man, is what develops into a human? And for that reason, sin has not come from the egg of the woman but from the sperm of the first man. And that is what the NT says about sin "from one man sin entered into the world and death through sin..."

[/quote]

I believe in Paternal descent. With that, I have no idea what your rebuttal is, and do you not see your circular reasoning of using the NT to define an old OT text? You have yet to explain why Paul, whose writings may indeed flat out contradict much in the OT as well Gospels, and wishes castration and damnation upon his enemies, should be included by your own criteria. Sirach was first, Paul was after. Why would anyone accept the logic that Castration-wishing Paul must be right but Sirach not?


So again I assume you have no response for the other issues.

 

[Windwalker]

When the christian church was first established, they already had an existing bible... it was the books spoken of by Jesus as 'the law the Pslams and the Prophets' of the Hebrew canon. Hence the complete canon of the Hebrew Scriptures preceded the Christian church, and the church was established on them.

That actually isn't true from my understanding, but I'll let those more versed in the texts the Jews of Jesus' time use to speak to this point.

The writings that you are referring to are the 'christian greek scriptures' ... they are the books that were disputed among christians for the reason that unauthorized christians were producing books and claiming them to be divinely inspired.

Several points of error here. The most glaring however is that you say that people were claiming these texts were divinely inspired, meaning in the sense of how you understand that as "dictated by God". These were texts that were used to convey the teachings of various schools of thought, or were used in their groups as matters of instruction or guidance in devotional practices. The Jews use the Mishna as well as the Torah in this way. It's only a later myth of the Church of Rome that mythologized the texts as delivered by God through his Holy Angels, so to speak. That's the myth you have today.

What it really boils down to is as I said, these Early Christian writings (not "scripture as you call them), including all of the ones in the NT were in a long list of such writings that were commonly in uses in the churches. They were only considered "heretical" by one faction of the early Christians, the proto-Orthodox, which couldn't fit them into their way of thinking or square them with their vision of what the church should look like, from an administrators point of view. They won the day, getting the power politically to call the shots and persecute other Christians of their day into conforming to their administrative model under what you hate today, the Church of Rome. It is the Catholic Church of Rome that presented you will what you now call God's Word. And yet, your church views them as heretics!

The irony is glorious.

 

[Ouroboros]

so you believe any writing which claims divine authorship or revelation is to be viewed as such? You dont think there should be defining features to prove it?

We're all divine. All literature is inspired by the divine.

What you're suggesting is that a few selected humans decide and pick what is devine and what is not, like the canon was. There are no "defining features" to prove what is divine since the definition of those features are made by humans. Here's the defining feature for you: there is no defining feature.

If i write something and claim Vishnu directed me, we can add my writing to the Vedic scriptures? Or I can write something and add it to the Bhagavad Gita and claim one of the hindu gods told me to add it in there because the message is from him?

Eh. No. But if we find a Vedic scripture that belonged to Vedic scripture, a person can't go in and remove it either. The canon was larger and had more books to it and humans decided to sift through and remove books that were accepted by Christian churches at that time, only because it didn't fit the growing political government of religious dominance. The pope and the bishops suddenly controlled what to believe and what to read. That's not freedom, and I think wasn't part of what the early Christianity was about. Jesus didn't write any book. Why? Why did he let his followers write books instead? Maybe because he believed they all had to find their own path to truth by looking at his life as an example how to live rather than pick and choose which religious dogma must be written in a law book. Was Jesus for or against the law? He was against, a replacement. So is it so smart to write a laws about what books you can read then? He would be against it.

 

[Ouroboros]

A list of all early Christian writings: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Which canon is right by the way? Catholic or Protestant?

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus didn't write any book. Why? Why did he let his followers write books instead? Maybe because he believed they all had to find their own path to truth by looking at his life as an example how to live rather than pick and choose which religious dogma must be written in a law book. Was Jesus for or against the law? He was against, a replacement. So is it so smart to write a laws about what books you can read then? He would be against it.

I like this!! Yes, the truth is one's path cannot be dictated to them. If it is, it's not their path but is someone else's, and it's like trying fit OJ's glove on your hand. It just won't fit, try as hard as you might to jamb your fingers into it.

I see all of what Jesus was saying as about NOT following the letter of the law, but about finding the Source in yourself and letting you right the law from within you. What is it it saying in Corinithians that the law is, "carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts." The "canon" is in effect chizzled in stone! "These are the "approved" books!!" Legalism. This is not a living truth.

 

[Jainarayan]

If i write something and claim Vishnu directed me, we can add my writing to the Vedic scriptures? Or I can write something and add it to the Bhagavad Gita and claim one of the hindu gods told me to add it in there because the message is from him?

Eh. No. But if we find a Vedic scripture that belonged to Vedic scripture, a person can't go in and remove it either.

Actually, books that cause discussion and contention have been added to the corpus of Hindu literature. Moreover, it could be argued that all the translations and commentaries are divinely inspired, though they may seem contradictory as long as they don't contradict the Vedas. The beauty of Hinduism is that there's room for complementary and supplementary commentaries and translations.

 

[Ouroboros]

I like this!! Yes, the truth is one's path cannot be dictated to them. If it is, it's not their path but is someone else's, and it's like trying fit OJ's glove on your hand. It just won't fit, try as hard as you might to jamb your fingers into it.

That's a very good analogy. Someone else's glove, just won't fit.

I see all of what Jesus was saying as about NOT following the letter of the law, but about finding the Source in yourself and letting you right the law from within you. What is it it saying in Corinithians that the law is, "carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts." The "canon" is in effect chizzled in stone! "These are the "approved" books!!" Legalism. This is not a living truth.

Exactly! If any religious leader in history ever was as opposed to traditionalism and fundamentalism, it was Jesus. There are several examples of that in the Gospels. It's about the heart, the search. Too many Christians are just children still drinking milk (literalism, fundamentalism, law abiding, dogmatic, etc), instead of eating the grownup food. When a person can feed themselves and don't have to be feed by others, that's when they're adult.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually, books that cause discussion and contention have been added to the corpus of Hindu literature. Moreover, it could be argued that all the translations and commentaries are divinely inspired, though they may seem contradictory as long as they don't contradict the Vedas. The beauty of Hinduism is that there's room for complementary and supplementary commentaries and translations.

Sounds good to me.

Personally, if we're all divine, we all contribute to the divine play by writing stories in our lives. We are our own narrators. We are the playwrighters where we are own stars.

When we read other people's stories, ideas, thoughts, and holy books, we only borrow ideas for our own story.

 

[Jainarayan]

Exactly; we are part of God's lila, divine play or recreation.