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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
... and on other forums you we even find people discussing yetis and alienn abduction. Therefore?
By forgery do you mean pseudepigraphic? And what do you mean by 'proven'? How? By whom?
Not at all, in fact it represents a trust that God would keep some of the words hidden that He doesn't want everyone to know about as is made most clear in 2 Esdras. There's simply no reason to believe that the later canons were authorized by the Spirit. I asked you how we even know which manuscripts are correct, how about that?
Shenanigans. Not at all. The dating methods used for Enoch are notoriously shoddy and ill conceived for one thing. As if it was written just prior to its inclusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They tried pushing the idea that it was written even in the 1st century C.E. at one time, then when the DSS were discovered they tried to say it was written as soon as the oldest copy was stored. Explain your reasoning on how its been "proven".
Being banned by later Judaism means absolutely nothing, (interestingly, apparently Sirach was considered Writ by the early Talmud writers, we don't know at what point the Apocrypha was totally rejected, especially since 2 Esdras may be including them as the "Books hidden for the wise", and Josephus used 1 Esdras) and it wasn't really banned even, just discluded from the later canon. Being banned by Church Council means nothing at all, especially considering the Early Church Fathers mostly accepted it, I think you're under the assumption that these orthodox "Church Councils" were guided by God . And it doesn't contradict scripture, it contradicts later-orthodox interpretations. Why don't you go over what's "nonsensical", because in Biblical discussions what's "nonsensical" is up for discussion even among the general canon.
Yes, and? Is that supposed to render it unfit? Notice that you earlier said there is no "My Canon" and "Your canon", yet you now say "Our Bible".
You can see according to Romanized orthodox theology and logic I suppose. And when you say "Never considered part of Canon", you mean by the later orthodox groups, certain works like Apocalypse of Peter were clearly canonical to Clement and many early Church groups.
You should be careful before you say what is a myth when it comes to Biblical discussions.
Not at all. It only contradicts what Orthodox theology and interpretation may say, not the text itself. I find the Apocrypha and some of the "Pseudipigrahical" "Lost texts" to perfectly conform to the accepted writings. What they don't conform to is Christian Orthodoxy and later-Talmudic Jewish concepts perhaps.
There are indications that 1 and 2 Timothy are written too late and are outright forgeries, along with 2 Peter. The grand majority of scholars seem to attribute the Pastoral Epistles as written after Paul died. Works like Shepherd of Hermas don't have to be written by the Apostles themselves, why can't a Prophetic work be written by a later Apostle exactly?
Lying about and rewriting history are you? Does the word "Antilegemona" mean absolutely nothing to you? Or maybe we have different definitions of "many". And in the modern day, Ephesians as well is mostly considered a forgery, I'm not sure if it was disputed back then though.
That has nothing to do with it, if they're fake then theyr'e fake, and yes, some very central Theological concepts are contained within the disputed books no matter how short.
Considered a heretic by who? The later orthodox Church? Why is their opinion so authoritative?
Seriously? Even Eusebius records this.
Yes, that still means it was disputed.
No, that's not the only reason it was disputed.
I do. The problem is that you have this concept that Trusting God means trusting the Orthodox authorities.Trust God...
