heretical gospels

[Matthewj1985]

I am re-reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great" and he brings up a lot of very good points. I have a lot of questions but the bigger ones were about the books of the bible that the Catholic church decided to leave out. Some of them tell wildly different stories about the crucification and resurrection. Also who gets the authority to pick and choose what does and doesn't go into the final copy?

These are the things that really put the cracks in my Christian faith a few years back that got me to where I am today.

 

[salida]

The books that were left out of the bible are those that contradict the bible because there were written by the gnostics. These people weren't christians and told their view were not eye witnesses to it all. They wrote hundreds of years after the fact. Thus, they weren't credible. The Bible is the most true book in the world. Because of its attributes it could only be written by God. One characteristic alone is that it has hundreds of detailed prophesies in it that has come true and more to be fulfilled - no other books does this period.

Other religions try to work there way to heaven. In christianity you can't do this because, Are You a Good Person? Go to: http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Only Jesus kept the 10 Commandments 100% of the time - we are ALL guilty. He gave us the gift of salvation. Its a gift we can never earn it. By having saving faith good works are a byproduct of this saving faith.

I'm sorry that this allowed you to have cracks in your christian faith. Actually, christianity doesn't have cracks in it at all when one fully understands where the bible came from and how it was written. There are always those that write books to try to marginalize christianity like athiests and agnostics - but all these questions are answered. As a start try reading, The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell(it would stand up in court without a reasonable doubt concerning bible) and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel(a former atheist).

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22)
Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28)

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

***A statement I like to make for athiests sometimes is, "If I'm right concerning the existence of God and they are wrong they have everything to lose. But if I'm wrong and they are right I have nothing to lose".

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I am re-reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great" and he brings up a lot of very good points. I have a lot of questions but the bigger ones were about the books of the bible that the Catholic church decided to leave out. Some of them tell wildly different stories about the crucification and resurrection. Also who gets the authority to pick and choose what does and doesn't go into the final copy?

These are the things that really put the cracks in my Christian faith a few years back that got me to where I am today.

To offer a more historical perspective to your question, the doctrine of faith was determined over time by the different Church Councils. It was at the third Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. that the canon of scripture was determined to be the following:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

Essentially in order for a book to be included into the canon, it had to be in agreement with the other books, and all of the Bishops present (there were several hundred of them) had to agree that the Holy Spirit had led them to including the book in the canon. The Holy Scriptures had to be in complete agreement with Holy Tradition, as Holy Tradition preceeded the Scriptures.

Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books

The Septuagint (Greek translation, from Alexandria in Egypt under the Ptolemies) was generally abandoned in favour of the Masoretic text as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages from St. Jerome's Bible (the Vulgate) to the present day. In Eastern Christianity, translations based on the Septuagint still prevail. Some modern Western translations make use of the Septuagint to clarify passages in the Masoretic text, where the Septuagint may preserve a variant reading of the Hebrew text. They also sometimes adopt variants that appear in other texts e.g. those discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A number of books which are part of the Peshitta or Greek Septuagint but are not found in the Hebrew (Rabbinic) Bible are often referred to as deuterocanonical books by Roman Catholics referring to a later secondary (i.e. deutero) canon. Most Protestants term these books as apocrypha. Evangelicals and those of the Modern Protestant traditions do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical, although Protestant Bibles included them in Apocrypha sections until around the 1820s. However, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches include these books as part of their Old Testament.

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the following books:
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Greek Additions to Esther
Greek Additions to Daniel

In addition to those, the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes the following:
3 Maccabees
1 Esdras i.e. Greek Ezra paraphrase
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151 as part of the Psalter
2 Esdras
Odes

The Syriac Orthodox Church also has:
The Apocalypse of Baruch 2 Baruch
The Letter of Baruch

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also has some others such as:
Jubilees
Enoch

The Anglican Church uses some of the Apocryphal books liturgically, but not to establish doctrine. Therefore, editions of the Bible intended for use in the Anglican Church include the Deuterocanonical books accepted by the Catholic church, plus 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, which were in the Vulgate appendix.
There is also 4 Maccabees which is only accepted as canonical in the Georgian Church, but was included by St. Jerome in an appendix to the Vulgate, and is an appendix to the Greek Orthodox Bible, and it therefore sometimes included in collections of the Apocrypha.

 

[Radagast]

I am re-reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great" and he brings up a lot of very good points. I have a lot of questions but the bigger ones were about the books of the bible that the Catholic church decided to leave out...

They were never in! The so-called "Gnostic Gospels" didn't turn up until the 2nd century (early Gnostics didn't use them), and they were never accepted by the mainstream church.

For the New Testament, about 85% was agreed on by all Christians from the very beginning: the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, I John, and I Peter. These were all written before AD 100, and by apostles or people associated with apostles.

There was some debate over Hebrews, Revelation, II John, III John, II Peter, James, and Jude -- partly because they hadn't reached the far corners of the Roman Empire as quickly as the rest, and partly because of uncertainty as to who exactly wrote them. The History of the Church by Eusebius, written shortly after Constantine made Christianity legal, lists the New Testament with question marks on these. By 367, the questions had been resolved, and these books were included in the New Testament.

 

[ebia]

I am re-reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great" and he brings up a lot of very good points. I have a lot of questions but the bigger ones were about the books of the bible that the Catholic church decided to leave out. Some of them tell wildly different stories about the crucification and resurrection. Also who gets the authority to pick and choose what does and doesn't go into the final copy?

These are the things that really put the cracks in my Christian faith a few years back that got me to where I am today.

As others point out, they weren't actually left out - they never were in. There aren't many books that ever were serious contenders and didn't make the final cut, and those aren't way out there.

Most of the supposedly contraversial books were never in use by the mainstream church, were written from the mid 2nd century onwards (best part of 100 years after) by groups like the gnostics. And for all the fasionable pretense that they are radical, are actually a lot less radical and challenging than the canonical gospels. Nobody was ever thrown to the lions for reading the likes of the "gospel" of Thomas, because it doesn't actually challenge the corrupt powers of this world - instead it promises escape for those in the know. Despite being titled gospels, most of them aren't gospels because they don't actually amount to an euangellion - the announcement of a new Lord - which is what the word connotes.

The church could hardly have said "well, we'll rubber stamp every book every written, past and future, that mentions the name Jesus, no matter who wrote it, when, or what it said" could it?

 

[artybloke]

The books that were left out of the bible are those that contradict the bible because there were written by the gnostics.

But if they were in the Bible they wouldn't contradict it...

What they contradict is the orthodox theological position. Which wouldn't it be orthodox if they hadn't won.

These people weren't christians and told their view were not eye witnesses to it all. They wrote hundreds of years after the fact.

The doctrine of the church wasn't as fixed as it is now at the time of the writing of the Gospels, and the Gospel writers weren't likely eye witnesses either, just a little bit earlier. Most of the apocryphal books were written within 200 years of the crucifiction. Not as early as the four we have, but not "hundreds of years" either. Still, the Gospels are more reliable than the rest.

Most of the apocryphal books, though, could best be described as "silly." I can imagine St Athanasius getting hold of a copy of, say, The Gospel of Judas and saying, "I'm not believing that, it's silly."

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Most of the apocryphal books, though, could best be described as "silly." I can imagine St Athanasius getting hold of a copy of, say, The Gospel of Judas and saying, "I'm not believing that, it's silly."

I believe you are mixing up the books of the Apocrypha with the Gnostic Gospels. As demonstrated in my original post, the Gospel of Judas is not in the Apocrypha.

Furthermore, the books of the Apocrypha, or Septugaint as we Orthodox prefer to refer to them as, are not "silly."

 

[ebia]

I believe you are mixing up the books of the Apocrypha with the Gnostic Gospels. As demonstrated in my original post, the Gospel of Judas is not in the Apocrypha.

Furthermore, the books of the Apocrypha, or Septugaint as we Orthodox prefer to refer to them as, are not "silly."

The word apocrapha gets applied both to what the RCC calls the deuterocanoncial books (Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, etc) and independently to some of the non-canonical and gnostic New Testament writings for quite different reasons. In neither case is it a very helpful word - partly because of this confusion.

As artybloke said, some of the so called gospels are really very silly indeed. Others, like Thomas, are not so easily dismissed - but Thomas still looks suspicously like the sayings extracted from the (canonical) synoptics with the narrative removed and some more added.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

I am re-reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great" and he brings up a lot of very good points. I have a lot of questions but the bigger ones were about the books of the bible that the Catholic church decided to leave out. Some of them tell wildly different stories about the crucification and resurrection. Also who gets the authority to pick and choose what does and doesn't go into the final copy?

These are the things that really put the cracks in my Christian faith a few years back that got me to where I am today.

As pointed out by HandmaidenOfGod, the first New Testament Canon came about in 397. It is my understanding this canonization was the result of two forces: (1) Constantine making Christianity an official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire some decades earlier; and (2) Commissioning Eusebius to create a list of the official books for the church. Another factor was that some Gnostics had earlier created a list of what THEY thought should be the correct books.

Essentially, the question was that since Christianity is now an official religion, what does the Christian church believe? Eusebius was put in charge of helping to answer that question due to the number of manuscripts floating around in the 300+ years since the time of Jesus.

And has been mentioned also, the Gnostics were a strong contender for what we term as the Orhtodox beliefs. The problem the Gnostics faced was that they were very fractured in their beliefs. Gnostics in Alexandria had very different beliefs from Gnostics in Jerusalem or Tarsus or elsewhere.

One can argue that the final creation of the New Testament was the result of politics and compormise among various factions in their united concern over the gnostics. One can also argue that it was the hand of God which directed events that eventually brought about the Canon of the New Testament.

I don't believe either argument can be proven though I personally believe it was the work of God.

Regardless, why would this history over how the Canon was determined put cracks in your faith?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Radagast]

As pointed out by HandmaidenOfGod, the first New Testament Canon came about in 397. It is my understanding this canonization was the result of two forces: (1) Constantine making Christianity an official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire some decades earlier; and (2) Commissioning Eusebius to create a list of the official books for the church. Another factor was that some Gnostics had earlier created a list of what THEY thought should be the correct books.

Essentially, the question was that since Christianity is now an official religion, what does the Christian church believe? Eusebius was put in charge of helping to answer that question due to the number of manuscripts floating around in the 300+ years since the time of Jesus.

Eusebius was not "put in charge of helping to answer that question." He just wrote a history of the church. And about 85% of the NT was decided from the beginning -- long before Eusebius and Constantine. See for example the Muratorian Canon, from around 180. We also know what books were accepted from what early Christians quoted in their writings. The "gnostic gospels" were never accepted by Christians.

 

[artybloke]

I believe you are mixing up the books of the Apocrypha with the Gnostic Gospels. As demonstrated in my original post, the Gospel of Judas is not in the Apocrypha.

Furthermore, the books of the Apocrypha, or Septugaint as we Orthodox prefer to refer to them as, are not "silly."

Sorry for the confusion, I did mean the NT apocryphal Gospels. I kind of agree with ebia that the term is confusing; but I'm not sure that just dismissing them as "Gnostic Gospels" is all that useful either.