U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-13-2016, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,591 posts, read 5,118,701 times
Reputation: 3916

Advertisements

A short list of existing "Christian" writings that never made it into the Bible that was finally composed in the early fourth century.

Mike is correct that most of the books EXISTED, but they were in heavy competition with quite a few other documents that claimed to be witnesses to Jesus as well. More than 200 (probably 300+)religious leaders, meeting in 325 C.E. struggled over all the various books for months before coming up with the list as we basically have it now. All these books EXISTED as well, making no easy solution for the council. That meeting was not easy. The bishops gathered on roughly May 20, 325 and remained in session until August 25 of that year.

Quote:
Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[ (all three were present at the council).
----------
Most significantly, it (the first Nicene Council) resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Here are listed some of the "christian" writings ultimately rejected by literally hundreds of arguing bishops who even fought over a new "christian" calculation for the date of Easter:
Gospels
Epistle of the Apostles
Gospel According to Hebrews
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of Mary
Gospel of the Nazareans
Gospel of Nicodemus
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Phillip
Gospel of the Savior
The (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas
The (Infancy)Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Papyrus Egerton 2 (fragmentary account from an otherwise unknown gospel of episodes re: Jesus)
Proto-gospel of James
Secret Gospel of Mark

Acts
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Peter
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thecla
Acts of Thomas

Epistles
1 Clement
2 Clement
3 Corinthians
Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Letter to the Laodiceans
Letter of Peter to James
Letter of Ptolemy to Flora
The Preaching of Peter
Pseudo-Titus

Apocalypses
Apocalypse of Paul
Apocalypse of Peter
(Coptice) Apocalypse of Peter
Hymn of the Pearl
Secret Book of John
Shepherd of Hermas
(all books listed in Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities)

As one can see there are more christian writings that were banned from the Bible than were accepted. All of the writings cited are dated to the Second Century CE or prior. A couple even date to the first century. They floated around with virtually no one having a copy of all, or even what composes the now Protestant Bible. That was the entire purpose of the Nicene Council. Christianity had already fragmented due to the plethora of christian literature available to the widely spread, small christian groups. There were a lot of bishops, a lot of books, and more than a few grave disagreements.

After the Nicene Council their began some purging of Christian groups who wanted to hold on to their own "gospels" and "letters." They were almost all wiped out.

The inability of Scripture as a rulebook to serve its purpose is evident. What survived drove the competing groups out, destroyed many of their "bibles," and, in a few cases, set about destroying any opponents as well.

It didn't work. We now have over 30,000 competing denominations from million member sizes to one-church megalomaniacal operations (like Westbrook Baptist Church).

Every single group claims to know best. All claim to follow the "rulebook" the correct way. Smart people should question every one of them--me included. Because MEN were so involved in both writing and promoting their brand of christianity, it behooves a truth seeker to swallow nothing from anyone, particularly those who are so damned sure that they have the right answer--and have a dozen scripture verses to "back" them. I love to run into those people because there are glaring, overwhelming contradictions which cause them to create fictional stories to make their particular view seem right.

Is my view correct? Not necessarily. And it has not remained the same since the day I was saved. If your view remains the same--it's not because you have the right answer, but because you refuse to look deeper into your faith. Certainty is the enemy of a truth-seeker. Doubt drives people to delve deeper into what is meaningful in their lives.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-13-2016 at 05:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:01 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
A short list of existing "Christian" writings that never made it into the Bible that was finally composed in the early fourth century.

Mike is correct that most of the books EXISTED, but they were in heavy competition with quite a few other documents that claimed to be witnesses to Jesus as well. More than 200 religious leaders, meeting in 325 C.E. struggled over all the various books for months before coming up with the list as we basically have it now. All these books EXISTED as well, making no easy solution for the council. That meeting was not easy. The bishops gathered on roughly May 20, 325 and remained in session until August 25 of that year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Here are listed some of the "christian" writings ultimately rejected by literally hundreds of arguing bishops who even fought over a new "christian" calculation for the date of Easter:
Gospels
Epistle of the Apostles
Gospel According to Hebrews
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of Mary
Gospel of the Nazareans
Gospel of Nicodemus
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Phillip
Gospel of the Savior
The (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas
The (Infancy)Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Papyrus Egerton 2 (fragmentary account from an otherwise unknown gospel of for episodes re: Jesus)
Proto-gospel of James
Secret Gospel of Mark

Acts
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Peter
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thecla
Acts of Thomas

Epistles
1 Clement
2 Clement
3 Corinthians
Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Letter to the Laodiceans
Letter of Peter to James
Letter of Ptolemy to Flora
The Preaching of Peter
Pseudo-Titus

Apocalypses
Apocalypse of Paul
Apocalypse of Peter
(Coptice) Apocalypse of Peter
Hymn of the Pearl
Secret Book of John
Shepherd of Hermas
(all books listed in Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities)

As one can see there are more christian writings that were banned from the Bible than were accepted. All of the writings cited are dated to the Second Century CE or prior. A couple even date to the first century. They floated around with virtually no one having a copy of all, or even what composes the now Protestant Bible. That was the entire purpose of the Nicene Council. Christianity had already fragmented do to the plethora of christian literature available to the widely spread, small christian groups. There were a lot of bishops, a lot of books, and more than a few grave disagreements.

After the Nicene Council their began some purging of Christian groups who wanted to hold on to their own "gospels" and "letters." They were almost all wiped out.

The inability of Scripture as a rulebook to serve its purpose is evident. What survived drove the competing groups out, destroyed many of their "bibles," and, in a few cases, set about destroying any opponents as well.

It didn't work. We now have over 30,000 competing denominations from million member sizes to one-church megalomaniacal operations (like Westbrook Baptist Church).

Every single group claims to know best. All claim to follow the "rulebook" the correct way. Smart people should question every one of them--me included. Because MEN were so involved in both writing and promoting their brand of christianity, it behooves a truth seeker to swallow nothing from anyone, particularly those who are so damned sure that they have the right answer--and have a dozen scripture verses to "back" them. I love to run into those people because their are glaring, overwhelming contradictions which cause them to create fictional stories to make their particular view seem right.

Is my view correct? Not necessarily. And it has not remained the same since the day I was saved. If your view remains the same--it's not because you have the right answer, but because you refuse to look deeper into your faith.
As I stated in post #140, ALL of the 27 New Testament documents were in existence by the end of the first century. As I also stated, one of the criteria used by the early church to recognize the canoncity of a New Testament document was apostolicity which means that for a document to be accepted into the canon it had to have been written either by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. That means that no book written after the time of the apostles could be recognized as a part of the word of God.

Other criteria were used as well, such as a document had to be in agreement with accepted principles of the faith. They had to be orthodox.

Since the New Testament consists of the 27 books which are contained in it, that means that the New Testament was completed with the completion of the last of the New Testament books to have been written which was by the end of the first century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,591 posts, read 5,118,701 times
Reputation: 3916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
All of the New Testament documents were written and in existence before the end of the first century. Most scholars believe that the book of Revelation was the last of the New Testament books to have been written, and date it to around A.D. 95. Some believe that the Gospel of John and perhaps the epistles of John may have been written after Revelation but still date them to the first century. Not many, if any scholars today date any of the New Testament books after the end of the first century.

One of the criteria that the early church used in recognizing the canonicity of a New Testament document was apostolicity meaning that the document had to have been written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. This rules out any book that was written after the apostles, or those associated with the apostles died.

This fact is recognized in the Muratorian canon which is dated to around A.D 175. As stated in the Muratorian canon, the 'Pastor' or 'Shepherd of Hermas' could not be recognized as belonging in the canon because it was written too late.
The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public38 in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.

Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)
And I did not claim that all 27 books were put together under one cover at that time. I specifically stated that they were not all brought together under one cover until later. But all 27 books had been written and were in circulation before the end of the first century and therefore the New Testament was in existence by the end of the first century.

Not only is the Book of John that we have today 99+% faithful to the original NT documents, but so are all of the New Testament Books as New Testament textual critics agree, based on a comparison of all of the extant New Testament documents. Not based on any one fragment.
With regard to "dates" of writing--all are best guesses based on what is found in the writings themselves--pre or post fall of Jerusalem. You always accept older dates and cite material scores of years later to "confirm" those thoughts. Yet when garbage was put INTO the bible we now have (because THAT is also found using textual criticism--even Wallace uses it), you reject it.

The fact remains that the earliest manuscript writing of the NT remains that fragment of John--at least until Wallace and crew decide to "release" their "hidden" evidence of a first century FRAGMENT of Mark.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,591 posts, read 5,118,701 times
Reputation: 3916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
As I stated in post #140, ALL of the 27 New Testament documents were in existence by the end of the first century. As I also stated, one of the criteria used by the early church to recognize the canoncity of a New Testament document was apostolicity which means that for a document to be accepted into the canon it had to have been written either by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. That means that no book written after the time of the apostles could be recognized as a part of the word of God.

Other criteria were used as well, such as a document had to be in agreement with accepted principles of the faith. They had to be orthodox.

Since the New Testament consists of the 27 books which are contained in it, that means that the New Testament was completed with the completion of the last of the New Testament books to have been written which was by the end of the first century.
Please give us a citation where any church prior to the Nicene Council, used just the 27 documents you believe God dictated. I would be very interested.

If not, then you are once again engaging in speculation without one iota of proof. You are simply stating the after-the-fact reasoning behind the Council's decisions made 300 years after the earliest authorship.

Most scholars already agree that several NT letters were written by other than whom it was attributed to, and none of the gospels can be traced to the actual "apostle" or "early disciple" listed on or in the book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:09 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
With regard to "dates" of writing--all are best guesses based on what is found in the writings themselves--pre or post fall of Jerusalem. You always accept older dates and cite material scores of years later to "confirm" those thoughts. Yet when garbage was put INTO the bible we now have (because THAT is also found using textual criticism--even Wallace uses it), you reject it.

The fact remains that the earliest manuscript writing of the NT remains that fragment of John--at least until Wallace and crew decide to "release" their "hidden" evidence of a first century FRAGMENT of Mark.
As you have been shown, the early church did not accept as canonical any book that was written after the time of the apostles. John, the last of the apostles died around the end of the first century.

What exactly do I reject?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:17 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Please give us a citation where any church prior to the Nicene Council, used just the 27 documents you believe God dictated. I would be very interested.

If not, then you are once again engaging in speculation without one iota of proof.

Most scholars already agree that several NT letters were written by other than whom it was attributed to, and none of the gospels can be traced to the actual "apostle" or "early disciple" listed on or in the book.
Once again, the church did not accept into the canon any book which was written after the time of the apostles. I already cited the Muratorian canon with regard to that fact.

While the church read the Shepherd of Hermas, it could not be accepted as a part of the canon because of its late date.

''We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public38 in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.''

Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)
As for the authenticity of the New Testament documents, Dr. Wallace comments,
''The early church never knowingly accepted any books for the canon if they believed such books were forgeries. I agree with you that the Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Peter. etc. are authentic. One who is consistently in line with the ancient church’s view of the canon also accepts that these books are authentic.''

http://danielbwallace.com/2013/03/17...e-you-serious/

Last edited by Mike555; 03-13-2016 at 05:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:18 PM
 
598 posts, read 240,828 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1 View Post
On the positive side, if we come into agreement with the Word and slay the carnal beastly nature, we are changed from glory (terrestrial) to glory (celestial). Just as we have borne the image of the natural, so too shall we bear the image of the heavenly.


On the negative side, those carnal beastly natures have and will continue to transfer down through the generations if we refuse to do the above. Science has just caught up to the concept, but since they are only looking at the natural, only see the fruit ("genetic predisposition"), and not the roots. Peace
quoted the wrong post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:22 PM
 
598 posts, read 240,828 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
He doesn't have to be righteous, after all, it has been magically imputed to him as long as he believes it?
However, there is no mystical transference of character or sin from one person to that of another.

We are a product of what we choose.

(Correct quote)

This is not true

In the beginning and when Adam was still in a harmonious relationship of righteousness with God, God told him to be take dominion, be fruitful and multiply on the earth long before Eve and Adam's sin. Also the law of the seed reproducing the same tree it came from was already in effect before Adam whose seed in the beginning would have passed on the righteousness of God up until the time Adam sinned.

Once Adam sinned with Eve and subsequently got the boot from the garden, the same law of the seed that earlier would have passed on the righteousness of God through Adam, now and by law passed on the unrighteousness of Adam's sin unto all offspring including his

Because sin is the cause of death, both curses were passed on to all future generations and are the cause of newborn babies being born under a curse of death even though they have not yet committed any sin themselves. ........... so Paul said the following words...........

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Your make believe doctrine we were all born without sin and Christ in our hearts meaning all we have to do is believe it is a total farce and a hersey of a origin that is not God. Therefore by law your your pet doctrine is a sin that all comes from father of all sin and evil................. any guess who that is

Thems the facts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,591 posts, read 5,118,701 times
Reputation: 3916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
As you have been shown, the early church did not accept as canonical any book that was written after the time of the apostles. John, the last of the apostles died around the end of the first century.

What exactly do I reject?
The same scholars you use to DEFEND your view of Scripture don't all believe what is IN the Bible today were written by apostles. It's doubtful that John even wrote the gospel bearing his name.

In other words, you accept scholarly views when they protect your biblical prejudice, and reject them when quite clearly almost EVERY scholar states John the Apostle had nothing to do with Revelation.

Quote:
The task of reconstructing John's later career is complicated by the frequency with which the name of John appears in early records. There is an ancient tradition that claims that John was killed in a pot of boiling oil. But the book of Revelation places John, at about the same time, in exile on the island of Patmos. Another very trustworthy tradition speaks of John as a teacher at Ephesus, where he died around the year 100. All this indicates that there were at least two people with the same name, and that later tradition confused them. A second-century Christian writer -- Papias of Hierapolis -- affirms that there were indeed two persons by the name of John in the early church: one the apostle, and another an elder at Ephesus, who received the visions on Patmos. It is clear, from the enormous difference in their use of the Greek language, that the John of Revelation did not write the Fourth Gospel -- commonly known as the Gospel of John. In any case, there was indeed toward the end of the first century, in the city of Ephesus, a Christian teacher named John, whose authority was great in all of the churches of Asia Minor.
bible - Who wrote the Book of Revelation? - Christianity Stack Exchange

You stick to internal evidence solely, and have no clue about textual and linguistic methods of textual criticism. Your own link mentions that some, not all, christians were being read the Apocalypse of Peter. The wording itself indicates that it was perhaps more often read than not.

This is how you reach the unholy and ungodly position that God hates gay people--or, at best, insists that they can never have any satisfactory physical intimacy. This is at the heart of fundamentalism that has resisted pressure against slavery, women, other religions, and even other Christian religions.

Young people need not sink to that level in order to find blessings in Scripture with worshiping it as an idol. Thank God there are plenty like you insisting that people not think and reason for themselves. It obviously worked on you, but the millenneals out there see all of you as avoiding truth and promoting things they don't want to have in their own hearts.

Whether or not they have "accepted" Jesus in a one-time confession, they are far ahead of you spiritually--at least based on you consistently narrow posts.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-13-2016 at 05:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2016, 05:39 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,651,035 times
Reputation: 7414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
The same scholars you use to DEFEND your view of Scripture don't all believe what is IN the Bible today were written by apostles. It's doubtful that John even wrote the gospel bearing his name.

In other words, you accept scholarly views when they protect your biblical prejudice, and reject them when quite clearly almost EVERY scholar states John the Apostle had nothing to do with Revelation.

bible - Who wrote the Book of Revelation? - Christianity Stack Exchange

You stick to internal evidence solely, and have no clue about textual and linguistic methods of textual criticism.

This is how you reach the unholy and ungodly position that God hates gay people--or, at best, insists that they can never have any satisfactory physical intimacy. This is at the heart of fundamentalism that has resisted pressure against slavery, women, other religions, and even other Christian religions.

Young people need not sink to that level in order to find blessings in Scripture with worshiping it as an idol. Thank God there are plenty like you insisting that people not think and reason for themselves. It obviously worked on you, but the millenneals out there see all of you as avoiding truth and promoting things they don't want to have in their own hearts.

Whether or not they have "accepted" Jesus in a one-time confession, they are far ahead of you spiritually--at least based on you consistently narrow posts.
Actually, I know quite a bit about how textual criticism is conducted. But I doubt very much that you do. Textual scholars by the way use both internal and external evidence.

I don't go with the majority just because the majority says something is true. Modern scholarship at times has a herd mentality often not based on valid assumptions. I believe the early church regarding the authorship of Revelation.

You said that the same scholars that I use to defend my view of Scripture don't all believe that the apostles wrote the books of the New Testament. And that is true. Many of them don't. But the early church believed that they did, and they did not knowingly accept any forgeries into the canon. And again, Dr. Wallace agrees with the early church on that as you've been shown.

Nor have I ever said that people shouldn't think for themselves. And I have never, ever said that God hates gay people. You will never find any such comment made by me anywhere on the forum. You keep making false accusations. You on the other hand once submitted a thread in which you said that God hates sinners. That thread is posted below.

Wardendresden, ''God hates us.''

God Hates Sinners

Last edited by Mike555; 03-13-2016 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top