Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents) -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:22:26 08/27/05 Sat
Author: Sheepdog
Subject: Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents)
In reply to: Lord Veritas 's message, "Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents)" on 21:38:13 08/07/05 Sun

Hello Lo Ve
You wrote this:
You mentioned that there were other texts that did not make it into the Bible. Please put all info about those here.
SD: You say that because they are gone and burned and you know I can�t produce an actual text, other than the ones recently found that I HAVE mentioned.
How about you produce the original texts of the NT so that we can carbon date them??????

This is a quote from an Orthodox Christian Church web site:
�� In the early years of the Christian Church, those most important books of Holy Scripture that we call the Gospels did not exist.� Several decades passed after Pentecost before the first Gospel was written.� It was the end of the first century by the time all four Gospels were written.� Three hundred more years passed before a decision was made in the Church that there would be only four Gospels.

The books that are in the Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are there because God's people, through those who were set aside as having the authority to make the decision, decided that these books would be part of the Bible, and other books would not.� The Church, as God's people inspired by God, wrote the Bible.� The Church produced the Bible, The Bible did not produce the Church. � End quote.
So, LoVe, the apostles didn�t produce the book, nor did they build their church around any script. The true Christian church back then was NOT a Bible church. They had no Bible. Who said it should be any different now?
The OCC and the Catholic Church claim full authority to choose which books are contained in what you now call the Bible. They did not include all the scripts that they had.
Why not include all of them and let us decide for ourselves which ones are worthy to be taken seriously?

LoVe: To help you get started, I suggest you tell us how the Gospel of Thomas could have been written by Thomas when he was killed more than five decades before it was written.
SD: If the above quote by OCC is true, then I�d say that NONE of the gospels existed until SEVERAL decades after the Pentecost. So why exclude the one of Thomas? Prove to me that ANY of the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Show me proof of any original script which carbon dates to Jesus' time.The church admits that it chose the books that would be included and others that would not.

LoVe: Write as much as you need to write about the subject here, so that you will no longer have to use this as a distraction from the salvation doctrine argument, either.

SD:
Was I wrong about the combining of Christianity & Paganism?
Was I wrong about Sunday and the Christian sabbath?
Was I wrong about Christmas being the Sun God�s birthday?
Was I wrong about Easter?
I was NOT wrong.
Considering these facts, would it be a stretch of anyone's imagination to assume that there were plenty of true Christian beliefs, including doctrines of salvation, and rituals that were extinguished because they didn�t fit into the blending of Christianity and Paganism?
As far as Salvation goes, if you base your salvation on an incomplete book, given to you by a corrupted church, I don�t think you�ve sought for full truth as much as you could have.
The true church and saints didn�t have the Book, are you better off than they when you base your whole salvation in a book that they didn�t even have? The Bible is a wonderful tool with much truth in it, but it is not the only tool in the shed.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Canon of NT Scripture? -- Capital Rendition, 11:56:04 03/20/09 Fri

(1) Gospel of Thomas.
Source: Judas Thomas the Twin (St.Thomas)
Year c.37 a.d.
Notations: Possible the elusive "Q" text. Recorded before Christians understood the need for own Scriptures; irremediably damaged in transmission; rejected for changes wrought by Gnostics.

(2) Gospel of John Mark
Sources: Shimon/Kepha (St. Peter), possibly "Q" additions
Year c.42-45 a.d.
Notations: first authoritative NT writing

(3) Gospel of Levi/Matthew (Gospel to the Hebrews)
Sources: Levi/Matthew, possibly "Q" additions
Year c.50-52 a.d.
Notations: oldest known manuscripts, radiocarbon dated to c.75-80 a.d. with obvious copyist corrections (original has to be older)

(4) Gospel of Luke & Book of Acts of the Apostles
Sources: Luke, Miryam/Virgin Mary, Shaul/Paul, Bar-Navi/Barnabas, possibly "Q" additions
Year c.58-60 a.d.
Notations: Two-volume work. No mention in "Acts" of the martyrdoms of Shimon/Kepha (St.Peter in 61-62 a.d.) or Shaul (St.Paul in 64-65 a.d.)

(5) Gospel of Yohannan/John
Sources: Yohannan/John, Miryam/Virgin Mary, Miryam of Magdala/Mary Magdalene.
Year c.65-75 a.d. (unclear)
Notations: Non-synoptic gospel comprising basic Church theodicy.

(6) Epistles
Years c.45-65 a.d. (most referenced in Acts)

(7) Apocalypse of Yohannan/John
Source: Yohannan/John
Year c.95 a.d.
Notation: last book accepted as scripture by Christian community.

During this time, there was a growing recognition that these works were inspired in the same sense that the OT books were. Until this recognition was made explicit, what had been regarded as scripture were:

(1) The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, including the deuterocanonical books known as the Apocrypha.

(2) The Three Books of Enoch.

(3) Some of the Essene writings (The Teacher of Righteousness, for one).

(4) To a lesser extent, the Book of Formation, the Book of Brilliance, the Talmud, the Midrash, & targums.

Due to the resources involved, few people had "the Scriptures" available in their entirety, leaving those preaching the Gospel for the next century to rely on other tools. The most popular of these were the "Didache (Teachings) of the Apostles", and the "Diatessaron of Tatian" (a harmony of the four Gospels). For teaching purposes, these stood in the stead of any "approved" Scripture.

This approval, rule, or "canon" of Scripture was finalized by about 150-160 a.d., and, except for some debate about substituting the "Second Epistle of Clement" for the "Apocalypse", is the same canon we use today. It was documented in c.177-180 a.d. by Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work "Against the Heresies." This standardization was ostensibly to eliminate the Gnostic claptrap that had grown up around Christianity in the previous hundred years, but more importantly, it was necessary because of a heretic named Marcion (& his followers), who tried to hijack the Scriptures (and Christianity along with them), claiming that anything "Jewish" about them was totally invalid and needed to be burned. They thus rejected the OT & the Gospels, accepting only the Epistles of Paul. (No problem with consistency THERE, mind you.)

Please note that all the NT apocrypha/pseudepigrapha were thus ALREADY excluded by the Church more than 150 years before Constantine was even born. These include but are not limited to:

The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of the Aeons
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocalypse of Mary
The Gospel of Barnabas
The Shepherd of Hermas
etc.
etc.
etc.

But do note that "The Gospel of Philip" is specifically excluded from this list, as it is not a 1st- or 2nd-century piece of NT apocrypha, but rather a 15th-century anti-Christian Muslim forgery (like the 10th-century anti-Jewish Muslim forgery "Alphabet of Ben-Sira" or the 19th-century anti-Jewish Muslim forgery "Protocols of the Elders of Zion").

(BTW, there's a chance I inadvertently included some facts above. There are no guarantees that I just made this all up off the top of my head.)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Canon of NT Scripture? -- CR (oops), 14:13:24 03/20/09 Fri

I think I got the Gospel of Barnabas & the Gospel of Philip backwards.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]