Why were ''Gospels'' omitted from the Bible?

[Deidre]

What books are we talking about here? These ones?
Here is a link if you want to read some of the older books:
Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and Sacred Writings

I (and all Mormons) agree that the Bible is incomplete...

A Jewish person thinks the Torah is complete... how would you convince someone who is Jewish that more scripture exists beyond the Torah? how would you convince some Christians that more scripture exists beyond the Bible? Everyone can read everything for themselves - does what you read bring the Spirit? the world is full of scripture in my opinion.

The truth is...if we were all illiterate...blind...and deaf...would God or the concept of him, mean any less?

No one needs organized religion or books or churches or priests or pastors or rabbis or anyone at all to discover a connection with a higher power, should they be open hearted to it.

I don't need for someone else to tell me what truth is, for it will only be their version of it. As is the case with all religions.

 

[sojourner]

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).

Those who set the canon were unaware of Thomas at the time the canon was set.

 

[sojourner]

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?

The canon was never meant to determine finally what was "sacred" or "authentic." It was only meant to determine "what could be read in church. Since the canon is a product of humanity, it's only proper that human beings should determine what's in and what's out. The bible has no authority of its own. In fact, the bible was intended to be an exhaustive collection.

 

[sojourner]

Since these books claim to a product of holy spirit, they must be clean. That means they cannot contain superstitions or demonism, nor encourage creature worship.

Do these other 'gospels' pass that test?

Many of them, yes.

 

[sincerly]

Omitting some texts from the Bible does not make the omitted texts not the word of God.
Unless, of course, you are one of those who believe that the Bible is all God has ever said or ever will say.

But not including a writing does Not mean that such a writing was ever considered to be from GOD.
Isa.8:20 is/was a test to determine the validity of somethings truth/accuracy.

 

[sincerly]

The canon was never meant to determine finally what was "sacred" or "authentic." It was only meant to determine "what could be read in church. Since the canon is a product of humanity, it's only proper that human beings should determine what's in and what's out. The bible has no authority of its own. In fact, the bible was intended to be an exhaustive collection.

Wrong! Sojourner, the scriptures are GOD communiques to mankind in order for mankind to have a right relationship to GOD and one's fellow beings. Not only were they "authentic"-- they were Sacred---since they were from GOD by way of HIS human spokespersons.
Mankind has wanted to do the determining of what they should believe as was evidenced by Adam and Eve.
Your "it's only proper" confirms the erroneous idea is still alive and well.
Mankind as a whole, today, still each wants to have things "my way".

GOD'S instructions were just as valid "in church" as in everyday life situations. That is why they were placed for a witness--"against ye".

 

[sojourner]

Wrong! Sojourner, the scriptures are GOD communiques to mankind in order for mankind to have a right relationship to GOD and one's fellow beings. Not only were they "authentic"-- they were Sacred---since they were from GOD by way of HIS human spokespersons.
Mankind has wanted to do the determining of what they should believe as was evidenced by Adam and Eve.
Your "it's only proper" confirms the erroneous idea is still alive and well.
Mankind as a whole, today, still each wants to have things "my way".

GOD'S instructions were just as valid "in church" as in everyday life situations. That is why they were placed for a witness--"against ye".

Your post just goes to show how the texts become grossly misrepresented when you refuse to do your history lessons and refuse to engage in biblical criticism.

 

[e.r.m.]

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?

I think the point is that it is not all God's word, that is precisely why it was left out. I've read (or been read to) parts of the apocrypha. It was very inconsistent with the description of God's character in the Bible.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I did not say otherwise, please read more carefully before trolling. I know that the NT does not reflect a single story

In practice the process was pretty simple, texts that fit into the story and theology being created were included - those that did not were excluded.

So when you refer to "the story", you mean stories? Why did you not only use the singular but the definite article?

Example please of an apocrypha that fits perfectly into the NT but was excluded?

The Didache, the Epistle to Barnabas, the Shepard of Hermas, the Second Epistle of Clement, and other such texts that were included by "orthodox" Christians.

 

[sojourner]

I think the point is that it is not all God's word, that is precisely why it was left out. I've read (or been read to) parts of the apocrypha. It was very inconsistent with the description of God's character in the Bible.

Problem is, there are denominations (such as the Ethiopian church) that include far more than the Protestant bible.

 

[sojourner]

"Example please of an apocrypha that fits perfectly into the NT but was excluded?"

Thomas.

 

[Bunyip]

So when you refer to "the story", you mean stories? Why did you not only use the singular but the definite article?

Because 'the story' in question is composed of many stories - what are you trying to do, be the grammar police? What on earth is your point?

The Didache, the Epistle to Barnabas, the Shepard of Hermas, the Second Epistle of Clement, and other such texts that were included by "orthodox" Christians.

So what? They were as you admit INCLUDED in some versions of the gospel - you were supposed to find examples that 'fit perfectly' but were EXCLUDED. Nobody has specified a particular version of the gospel. Just leave it Legion, you are just making a fool of yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

"Example please of an apocrypha that fits perfectly into the NT but was excluded?"

Thomas.

Thomas presents a number of difficulties (aside from being discovered much later). The depiction of Jesus and doctrine is greatly at odds with early Christian theology.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because 'the story' in question is composed of many stories - what are you trying to do, be the grammar police? What on earth is your point?

This isn't a matter of grammar:

In practice the process was pretty simple, texts that fit into the story and theology being created were included - those that did not were excluded.

You clearly and obviously referred to a singular "story" that you subsequently denied existed.

So what?

You asked. And as for "so what" they are another indication that your incredibly simplistic, inaccurate depiction of the process is uninformed. More importantly, examples like these concern the real answer to the question, not the "pretty simple" process you described.

They were as you admit INCLUDED in some versions of the gospel

No they weren't. They were included in some collections as either canon or proto-canon. The OP relates to the formation of canon. These and other texts nearly made it while texts like revelations almost didn't. Your description was wrong and I would prefer to provide the OP with accurate answers.

Nobody has specified a particular version of the gospel.

You specified your inaccurate version of the process of canon formation. The quote is above for all to see. It's wrong. Plain and simple.

 

[Bunyip]

This isn't a matter of grammar:

You clearly and obviously referred to a singular "story" that you subsequently denied existed.


You asked. And as for "so what" they are another indication that your incredibly simplistic, inaccurate depiction of the process is uninformed. More importantly, examples like these concern the real answer to the question, not the "pretty simple" process you described.


No they weren't. They were included in some collections as either canon or proto-canon. The OP relates to the formation of canon. These and other texts nearly made it while texts like revelations almost didn't. Your description was wrong and I would prefer to provide the OP with accurate answers.


You specified your inaccurate version of the process of canon formation. The quote is above for all to see. It's wrong. Plain and simple.

You are just trolling mate, stop it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are just trolling mate, stop it.

I'm sorry you view the blatant contradictions between your posts "trolling". However, your description contradicts my own that I gave prior yours. So, we have conflicting posts answering the OP, and I am trying to show for the sake of the OP, truth, and this thread that your description is incorrect. This is a debate forums. Your assertion conflicts with one I gave (and gave prior to yours), so I am disagreeing with it. Why is it that every time you're shown to be wrong you equate it with trolling?

 

[Desert Snake]

It's not soup labels with a fancy cover; however the 'gnostic gospels' don't match the criteria set for the rest of the ''books'' included in the Bible.
It's interesting, though. First off, the ''books'' in the bible are held in different light in Judaism and Christianity. They have a different list of prophets, for example. But it's more than that. Later Epistles are called 'added epistles', as well, because some were added later after a canon was compiled.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm sorry you view the blatant contradictions between your posts "trolling". However, your description contradicts my own that I gave prior yours. So, we have conflicting posts answering the OP, and I am trying to show for the sake of the OP, truth, and this thread that your description is incorrect. This is a debate forums. Your assertion conflicts with one I gave (and gave prior to yours), so I am disagreeing with it. Why is it that every time you're shown to be wrong you equate it with trolling?

Because you are not showing me to be wrong, you are just trolling. Please stop. I gave a breif comment about the gospels, you are pretending it was intended to be an accurate and complete assessment of how the gospels were formed - which it clearly was not.
Many of the apocrypha were excluded because they did not fit the narrative - that is what I was saying, and it is true. It was never intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the process.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because you are not showing me to be wrong

texts that fit into the story and theology being created were included - those that did not were excluded.

I know that the NT does not reflect a single story

These statements are cannot both be true.

I gave a breif comment about the gospels

No you inaccurately described the creation of canon (the inclusion or exclusion of "texts", not gospels, in the canon). Then you challenged me:

Example please of an apocrypha that fits perfectly into the NT but was excluded?

After I answered this, you replied "so what"? If that is your real response, why ask the question?

you are pretending it was intended to be an accurate and complete assessment of how the gospels were formed

Now you are (as you would put it) "trolling me". I said no such thing, I implied no such thing, and I believe no such thing.

Many of the apocrypha were excluded because they did not fit the narrative

There it is again. "The narrative". What narrative? In another thread going on right now I am debating another who argues that because John doesn't fit into the narrative it should be excluded.

 

[Bunyip]

These statements are cannot both be true.

I have no idea what you are even complaining about - there is no contradiction there. The NT is a story composed of many smaller stories - pretty simple, nothing dishonest, nothing to 'back track' or deny. You are focussing on inconsequential semantic minutia.

No you inaccurately described the creation of canon (the inclusion or exclusion of "texts", not gospels, in the canon). Then you challenged me:

It was never meant to be a completely accurate or comprehensive description. It was hyperbole.

After I answered this, you replied "so what"? If that is your real response, why ask the question?


Now you are (as you would put it) "trolling me". I said no such thing, I implied no such thing, and I believe no such thing.

Then what are you arguing about? If you accept that my comment was hyperbole - your entire sequence of responses become redundant.

There it is again. "The narrative". What narrative? In another thread going on right now I am debating another who argues that because John doesn't fit into the narrative it should be excluded.

Then please focus on that conversation instead.