If it is all the 'word of God,' why would those who supposedly compiled the Bible, omit those texts? How can anyone be certain then of the Bible's validity, if not all of ''God's word'' was included? Who is man to omit certain books out of the Bible--isn't that ''tampering'' with God's word?
-
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?
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
Okay, thank you for that.
Well, of what I do know, Constantine had a lot to do with the Bible as we see it today. The question becomes...how can anyone trust the Bible to be the word of God, if some Gospels were omitted? Doesn't it sound like then, that the Bible is a product of men?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Spiderman
Veteran Member
a lot of people question the authorities that decided which books would be placed into a single volume Bible!
There was much debate. There were councils called to settle the matter. People have been debating it for centuries. It isn't just you
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sorry, ha. to answer your question, though. I think the Church deemed that the books that didn't fit where one's that could not fit nicely into the Bible. Since there is an even flow to the Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas wouldn't make the fit (according to the Church canon). Also, the more recent it is, the less likely it is to be God's Word (according to many believers)... so the book of Mormon is out too.
There are many books that talk about their own experience and witnessed events and because they say they come from God, then it is the word of God. However, I never believed God actually wrote on His own accord. It's through people to which "His" words are written--and that means any person from the first word till now till the future.
Thana
Lady
Well, I mean.. It's kinda obvious.
Certain Gospels meet certain criteria to be considered valid, The Gospels that are ommitted don't meet that criteria.
There are many false prophets, Many people claiming to be Jesus, to know Jesus and so on. Just because they write their opinions down and call it a Gospel does not make it the word of God.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yeah, I know. Thank gosh!a lot of people question the authorities that decided which books would be placed into a single volume Bible!
There was much debate. There were councils called to settle the matter. People have been debating it for centuries. It isn't just you
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Here's the thing, though. If you are Christian and wrote down everything God tells you to write--what is in your heart that came from God--that is the Word of God. It didn't come from you, it came from God.
Many people write their testimonies and events now just as the people did in the Bible; no different. Just the Church put together the book in a nice packet and ended it at rev to where no other person who has genuine words from God can ever write something God has actually told him.
Any Christian can write God's Words to him/her. Those words are the Word of God. (not Joe not Jane).
Many people write their testimonies and events now just as the people did in the Bible; no different. Just the Church put together the book in a nice packet and ended it at rev to where no other person who has genuine words from God can ever write something God has actually told him.
Any Christian can write God's Words to him/her. Those words are the Word of God. (not Joe not Jane).
What texts were omitted though? Those texts that contradict the Gospels that were included. So, how can the NT be an accurate or complete representation of the word of God?
I say it isn't, and that perhaps most or all of it was fabricated, which is why the other writings were omitted.
I don't believe in conspiracies but......... lol
I'm suggesting that any Gospel that was omitted during the compilation of the Bible, we should question why...
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
Now if I can figure out how to make this relate to the topic.
I remember when Ann Richards was sworn into office as Governor of Texas. She was asked which bible to wanted to take the oath of office on:
Her answer has to rate as a classic
Her reply "The KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
The point being there was no early "approved" bible. The various acceptance of books became the choice of the most powerful clergy.
If the Copts or Ethiopians had been more powerful, the bible would look much different today.
I remember when Ann Richards was sworn into office as Governor of Texas. She was asked which bible to wanted to take the oath of office on:
Her answer has to rate as a classic
Her reply "The KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
The point being there was no early "approved" bible. The various acceptance of books became the choice of the most powerful clergy.
If the Copts or Ethiopians had been more powerful, the bible would look much different today.
So, it only becomes the 'word of God,' when man 'votes' on it?
I'm not trying to be flip, I'm honestly asking the question.
Therein lies the problem. (Thank you for stating that!)
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
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
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
outhouse
Atheistically
Who said it is the word of a deity, who carries any credibility ?
The canon was not created because some were gods words and some were not. The canon was created due to a popularity contest more then anything.
What was popular and stayed popular is the only reason we have certain text.
Had Gnosticism become more popular we would have different text now.
Since none of it is gods word in my opinion, there was no tampering.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Deidre, the Truth is seen in the beginning. Was Eve wise to listen to the serpent? He spoke knowingly "about the subject"---but was it accurate?
Jim Jones gave false messages and even poisoned laced "kool-aid". Believe what you want; but there are vast numbers of false teachings out there and their end results are not pleasant.