Why Apochyphal/Gnostic writings are not part of Canon

Pegg, have you considered my question?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

So your position is that all the books of the canonical Bible meet all five of these tests?

How does the zombie invasion of Jerusalem described in Matthew 27:50-53 meet test #5?

Heck, how does Revelation meet any of those tests?

Click to expand...

I'm worried that you're demanding that non-canonical books meet requirements that even canonical books can't meet. If this is the case, then you're using a double standard.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Pegg, have you considered my question?



I'm worried that you're demanding that non-canonical books meet requirements that even canonical books can't meet. If this is the case, then you're using a double standard.

Click to expand...

I'll answer serious questions... but zombie invasions??? that is not a serious question.

I know the account you are referring to and its nothing of the sort. if you want to discuss that account, you are welcome to open a new thread and ill address it there.

Pegg said:

I'll answer serious questions... but zombie invasions??? that is not a serious question.

I know the account you are referring to and its nothing of the sort. if you want to discuss that account, you are welcome to open a new thread and ill address it there.

Click to expand...

Zombie invasion, people rising from the dead, Tomato Tomahtoe.

Pegg said:

I'll answer serious questions... but zombie invasions??? that is not a serious question.

I know the account you are referring to and its nothing of the sort.

Click to expand...

It was my attempt at humour. In any case, the passage recounts many dead people coming back to life and interacting with the people of Jerusalem. Whatever you call it, where is your "evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details"?

Pegg said:

if you want to discuss that account, you are welcome to open a new thread and ill address it there.

Click to expand...

I'm not as concerned with that specific account as I am with the larger question: can you show us that the canonical Bible meet your tests for canonicity?

As a test case, I'd suggest Revelation: does it meet your tests? By my measure, it doesn't. Should it be excluded from the canon?

Pegg said:

the content decides.

Click to expand...

Nice little word salad safety net you got going there.

Pegg said:

I'll answer serious questions... but zombie invasions??? that is not a serious question.

Click to expand...

The original meaning of the word zombie was "re-animated corpse." Nothing more. Not the movie/television version of brain-eating killers with no brain themselves.

The philosophical term zombie means a being who acts and behaves just like any other human being to such a degree that we can't distinguish him/her from a non-zombie human.

I know the account you are referring to and its nothing of the sort. if you want to discuss that account, you are welcome to open a new thread and ill address it there.

Click to expand...

Maybe you just need to look into what the word originally referred to. It used to be a word for resurrected people (usually done through witchcraft, but still, not the same as modern brain-eating zombies).

The TV/movie version of zombies would be more accurately named ghouls, since zombies don't eat human flesh, while ghouls are un-dead flesh eaters.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

It was my attempt at humour. In any case, the passage recounts many dead people coming back to life and interacting with the people of Jerusalem. Whatever you call it, where is your "evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details"?

Click to expand...

im more concerned with what the scriptures 'actually' say as opposed to how people have interpreted them. That is a terrible interpretation imo. The text at Matthew 27:52, 53 concerning “the memorial tombs [that] were opened” as the result of an earthquake does not describe the corpses coming to life, but merely a throwing of bodies out of their tombs. And it then says 53 (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people" ... even this doesnt say the corpses came into the city, it only says 'persons' coming out from among the tombs... which most likely means people who were among the tombs at the time came into the city.

So we certainly dont interpret it to mean the corpses came out into the city... only the people who witnessed the corpses being thrown out of the tombs came into the city to report on it.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I'm not as concerned with that specific account as I am with the larger question: can you show us that the canonical Bible meet your tests for canonicity?

As a test case, I'd suggest Revelation: does it meet your tests? By my measure, it doesn't. Should it be excluded from the canon?

Click to expand...

what is it about revelation that doesnt meet the criteria i set out in the OP. Maybe you can give me some examples of verses you have in mind.

Mestemia said:

Nice little word salad safety net you got going there.

Click to expand...

Why thankyou

Ouroboros said:

The philosophical term zombie means a being who acts and behaves just like any other human being to such a degree that we can't distinguish him/her from a non-zombie human.

Click to expand...

lol, a 'non-zombie human'

Ouroboros said:

Maybe you just need to look into what the word originally referred to. It used to be a word for resurrected people (usually done through witchcraft, but still, not the same as modern brain-eating zombies).

The TV/movie version of zombies would be more accurately named ghouls, since zombies don't eat human flesh, while ghouls are un-dead flesh eaters.

Click to expand...

oh i get you , so we are talking about the non brain eating zombies as opposed to the sort of zombies we see on the film clips like thriller

Im with ya now

Pegg said:

Why thankyou

Click to expand...

to bad it undermines your claims...

Pegg said:

lol, a 'non-zombie human'

Click to expand...

oh i get you , so we are talking about the non brain eating zombies as opposed to the sort of zombies we see on the film clips like thriller

Im with ya now

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Except that not even the old-fashioned zombie really fits the Gospel zombies either. Old fashioned zombies are still under a spell and can't control their own actions. The Bible zombies--I assume--willingly left the graves to preach... but who knows, maybe they were after fresh brains in Jerusalem?

Pegg said:

im more concerned with what the scriptures 'actually' say as opposed to how people have interpreted them. That is a terrible interpretation imo. The text at Matthew 27:52, 53 concerning “the memorial tombs [that] were opened” as the result of an earthquake does not describe the corpses coming to life, but merely a throwing of bodies out of their tombs. And it then says 53 (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people" ... even this doesnt say the corpses came into the city, it only says 'persons' coming out from among the tombs... which most likely means people who were among the tombs at the time came into the city.

So we certainly dont interpret it to mean the corpses came out into the city... only the people who witnessed the corpses being thrown out of the tombs came into the city to report on it.

Click to expand...

What version of the Bible are you using? It doesn't match any mainstream translation I've ever seen. For instance, here's the ESV:

52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Click to expand...

It says that "bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep" were raised, and it say that those bodies "went into the holy city and appeared to many." I think the plain language interpretation of this passage is that it was the dead saints who emerged from their tombs and went into Jerusalem.

Pegg said:

what is it about revelation that doesnt meet the criteria i set out in the OP. Maybe you can give me some examples of verses you have in mind.

Click to expand...

Well, let's step through it:

1. The document must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth. It should turn people to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth.

Click to expand...

The document deals in a large part with affairs in Heaven, not on Earth.

2. It must give evidence of inspiration by holy spirit and demonstrate the holy attitudes of that spirit.

Click to expand...

Even though I see no such evidence, I think this one's so vague and subjective that a rationalization could be given for anything to meet it, so I'll give it to you.

BTW: exactly what do you see as the evidence given in Revelation for its inspiration? What "holy attitudes" does it demonstrate?

3. There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God.

Click to expand...

Again, a vague and subjective test that's not really useful.

4. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God.

Click to expand...

I think there's quite a bit in Revelation that conflicts with other parts of the Bible.

5. The writings should give evidence of accuracy (ie historical/geographic/timing/prophecy) down to the smallest details

Click to expand...

Seeing how almost all the book purports to be prophecy about the future, I don't see how we could ever expect to have evidence for its truth unless the events it describes actually happen.

So, to sum up:

- test 1: clearly fails.
- test 2: I'd say it fails, but I'm sure you'll say it passes.
- test 3: a useless test, so I'll just give it to you.
- test 4: fails, though I'm sure you'll debate this.
- test 5: clearly fails.

ouroboros said:

Except that not even the old-fashioned zombie really fits the Gospel zombies either. Old fashioned zombies are still under a spell and can't control their own actions. The Bible zombies--I assume--willingly left the graves to preach... but who knows, maybe they were after fresh brains in Jerusalem?*

Click to expand...

I've never like brains. Taste disgusting.

Hearts are better, though a bit chewy.

I can't understand how someone could eat livers. BAH!

gnostic said:

I've never like brains. Taste disgusting.

Click to expand...

Then we can conclude from clear evidence that you're not a zombie. Good for you!

Hearts are better, though a bit chewy.

Click to expand...

But... you're a heart breaker.

I can't understand how someone could eat livers. BAH!

Click to expand...

True. I don't like them either, or brains, or hearts.

So what about the canon? We could use a cannon for the zombies though.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

What version of the Bible are you using? It doesn't match any mainstream translation I've ever seen. For instance, here's the ESV:

It says that "bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep" were raised, and it say that those bodies "went into the holy city and appeared to many." I think the plain language interpretation of this passage is that it was the dead saints who emerged from their tombs and went into Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Im using the NWT

Matthew does not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e·gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground. And lets face it, if this was a mass resurrection, then why do no other bible writers mention the event when they are trying to convince people of the resurrection hope? It seems clear that no other bible writer believed the account to be of a mass resurrection.
But JW's are not the only ones who have rendered to verse in such a way as to not appear that the corpses were resurrected. German scholar Theobald Daechsel gives the following translation: “And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up.”

Whats more logical to you?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

The document deals in a large part with affairs in Heaven, not on Earth.

Click to expand...

I'd say probably 90% of its prophecies pertain to what will be occuring on earth in the final part of the days. Its addressed to the 7 congregations in the district of Asia. Its prophecies are in harmony with Gods will to cleans the earth of the wicked and redeem mankind from sin and death. It shows the conclusion of Satan the devil and the glorious hope of everlasting life on earth free from sickness and death and the restoration of Eden.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

BTW: exactly what do you see as the evidence given in Revelation for its inspiration? What "holy attitudes" does it demonstrate?

Click to expand...

The holy attitudes are seen in the books clear admonition to 'worship God' and reject the false prophets and get out of Babylon the Great, make ones worship clean, keep enduring and it does not hold back from highlighting the errors of the congregations...this is something we see throughout the entire bible...errors are highlighted and warnings are given which is not a human trait.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I think there's quite a bit in Revelation that conflicts with other parts of the Bible.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, we see so many ways in which it ties in as the conclusion to all that God has promised. Genesis 1:1 described God’s creation of the material heavens and earth, so Revelation 21:1-4 describes a new heaven and a new earth and the blessings that will be brought to mankind, as prophesied also at Isaiah 65:17, 18; 66:22; and 2 Peter 3:13.
The first man was told he would positively die if disobedient, Revelation gives us Gods guarantee that “death will be no more.” for those who are obedient (Gen. 2:17; Rev. 21:4)
Genesis foretold the bruising of the head of the Serpent, and the Revelation discloses how the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, is finally hurled into destruction. (Gen. 3:1-5, 15; Rev. 20:10)
Genesis recorded how disobedient man was driven away from the Edenic tree of life, but now in Revelation symbolic trees of life appear “for the curing of the nations” (Gen. 3:22-24; Rev. 22:2)
Genesis has a river issueing out of Eden to water the garden, now a symbolic river of life is pictured as flowing from God’s throne which reminds us of Jesus’ words about “a fountain of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.” (Gen. 2:10; Rev. 22:1, 2; Ezek. 47:1-12; John 4:13, 14)
And revelation now shows the reversal of being driven away from Gods face as sinful man was, now the faithful conquerors will see his face. (Gen. 3:24; Rev. 22:4)

it is a picture of all that will be achieved by Gods kingdom and it ties in perfectly with the promises of the hebrew scriptures and with the rest of the Greek scriptures.

pegg said:

Im using the NWT

Click to expand...

NTW?

Never heard of it. Is it a new translation?

Pegg said:

Im using the NWT

Matthew does not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e·gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground.

Click to expand...

So you still have "bodies of the saints" getting up out of the ground or their tombs and wandering into Jerusalem. Whether or not the word can be used in other ways, it seems that it's clear they're talking about a mass resurrection.

Pegg said:

And lets face it, if this was a mass resurrection, then why do no other bible writers mention the event when they are trying to convince people of the resurrection hope? It seems clear that no other bible writer believed the account to be of a mass resurrection.

Click to expand...

Yes it does seem that Matthew contradicts the other accounts in this regard. I agree that a mass resurrection is the sort of event that would be hard to miss, and that most people would consider noteworthy. However, none of this implies that the writer of Matthew couldn't have intended this as the meaning of the passage.

But if we're looking at disagreements between the different gospel accounts, I think it's worth pointing out other problems. For instance, how did Judas die? Which version is "in harmony with the whole"?

And is the resurrection of Christ up for debate? After all, the original ending of Mark ends with Jesus dead in the tomb and the disciples confused and afraid.

Pegg said:

But JW's are not the only ones who have rendered to verse in such a way as to not appear that the corpses were resurrected. German scholar Theobald Daechsel gives the following translation: “And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up.”

Whats more logical to you?

Click to expand...

More "logical"? I don't think much in the resurrection story is plausible, if that's what you mean. If you're asking about internal consistency, I think it makes more sense to interpret the passage in Matthew at face value: that he really is talking about dead people coming to life and interacting with the people of Jerusalem. I think that your eisegesis doesn't make much sense in one important respect: if the writer really did mean to say that dead corpses were brought forth in the earthquake and then gravediggers (or whoever happened to be hanging around in the tombs/graveyard) walked to town and talked to people, why would they bother to write that second part? What's remarkable about regular live human gravediggers walking to town?

Pegg said:

I'd say probably 90% of its prophecies pertain to what will be occuring on earth in the final part of the days. Its addressed to the 7 congregations in the district of Asia. Its prophecies are in harmony with Gods will to cleans the earth of the wicked and redeem mankind from sin and death. It shows the conclusion of Satan the devil and the glorious hope of everlasting life on earth free from sickness and death and the restoration of Eden.

Click to expand...

Fine. I don't think that's a reasonable view, but I recognize that Revelation is so symbolic that it's possible for someone (especially someone who would be this creative in their reinterpretation of that passage in Matthew) to interpret it as happening on Earth.

Pegg said:

The holy attitudes are seen in the books clear admonition to 'worship God' and reject the false prophets and get out of Babylon the Great, make ones worship clean, keep enduring and it does not hold back from highlighting the errors of the congregations...this is something we see throughout the entire bible...errors are highlighted and warnings are given which is not a human trait.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. So consigning much of humanity to a "lake of fire" is holy to you?

Pegg said:

On the contrary, we see so many ways in which it ties in as the conclusion to all that God has promised. Genesis 1:1 described God’s creation of the material heavens and earth, so Revelation 21:1-4 describes a new heaven and a new earth and the blessings that will be brought to mankind, as prophesied also at Isaiah 65:17, 18; 66:22; and 2 Peter 3:13.
The first man was told he would positively die if disobedient, Revelation gives us Gods guarantee that “death will be no more.” for those who are obedient (Gen. 2:17; Rev. 21:4)
Genesis foretold the bruising of the head of the Serpent, and the Revelation discloses how the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, is finally hurled into destruction. (Gen. 3:1-5, 15; Rev. 20:10)
Genesis recorded how disobedient man was driven away from the Edenic tree of life, but now in Revelation symbolic trees of life appear “for the curing of the nations” (Gen. 3:22-24; Rev. 22:2)
Genesis has a river issueing out of Eden to water the garden, now a symbolic river of life is pictured as flowing from God’s throne which reminds us of Jesus’ words about “a fountain of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.” (Gen. 2:10; Rev. 22:1, 2; Ezek. 47:1-12; John 4:13, 14)
And revelation now shows the reversal of being driven away from Gods face as sinful man was, now the faithful conquerors will see his face. (Gen. 3:24; Rev. 22:4)

it is a picture of all that will be achieved by Gods kingdom and it ties in perfectly with the promises of the hebrew scriptures and with the rest of the Greek scriptures.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more of a contradiction in a deeper way: other passages of the Bible - the Gospels, for instance - have a strong emphasis on forgiveness, while Revelation seems to, well, revel in vengeance and the rejection of forgiveness. The theology of the one is not the theology of the other, IMO.

... though this isn't the only way in which different parts of the Bible have contradictory messages, IMO. I'd say the same thing about the messages of the Old Testament and the Gospel, too... or the Gospel and the Epistles of Paul.

gnostic said:

NTW?

Never heard of it. Is it a new translation?

Click to expand...

NWT = New World Translation. It's the version of the Bible Jehovah's Witnesses chose to translate for themselves.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

So you still have "bodies of the saints" getting up out of the ground or their tombs and wandering into Jerusalem. Whether or not the word can be used in other ways, it seems that it's clear they're talking about a mass resurrection.

Click to expand...

this is the point, the bodies thrown out of the tombs are not said to have been resurrected. It only says they were thrown up. It doesnt say they came to life, it doesnt say they were resurrected. That is added by those who interpret the account in that way.

The Greek Interlinear states it exactly like this:
'And the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints having fallen asleep were raised'
Matthew doesnt say they were resurrected. But in the same passage, he does use the word resurrection when speaking of Jesus being raised.

So why does he not use the same word regarding the bodies of the saints who were raised? this is why its not reasonable to conclude that Matthews account is about a resurrection of the dead... .he doesnt say it is so there is no basis to interpret it that way.

The NWT puts it this way:
And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, 53 (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people.
Our interpretation of the event is that the bodies were thrown out of the grave, and people who were at the tomb site and witnessed this then went into the city to tell others what had happened.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

But if we're looking at disagreements between the different gospel accounts, I think it's worth pointing out other problems. For instance, how did Judas die? Which version is "in harmony with the whole"?

Click to expand...

one account says that he hung himself, the other says his body split apart on the rocks below... so both things happened. He hung himself from a tree, the branch eventually gave way and his body fell and split apart on the rocks below.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Hmm. Interesting. So consigning much of humanity to a "lake of fire" is holy to you?

Click to expand...

Have you read the Hebrew scriptures? have you not read the accounts of what happens to the wicked?
Here is a recap:
Ps 92:7 When the wicked ones sprout as the vegetation And all the practicers of what is hurtful blossom forth, It is that they may be annihilated forever.

Psalm 37:38 But the transgressors themselves will certainly be annihilated together; The future of wicked people will indeed be cut off

Psalm 9:17 Wicked people will turn back to She′ol, Even all the nations forgetting God

Prov 2:22 As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it


Do you think Jesus teachings regarding the fate of the wicked are any less then what we read in the Hebrew scriptures? They are not.
EG.
Matt 25:46 And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.

God does not change from the Hebrew scriptures to the Greek scriptures. The God Moses preached gave mankind a choice:
“I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the malediction; and you must choose life in order that you may keep alive.”—DEUTERONOMY 30:19.
This choice is still the choice before us and revelation shows the outcome for those who choose the blessing:
Rev 21:21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

and the result of those who choose the malediction:
Rev 20:8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.”
15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

This is a common theme in the bible from beginning to end.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I was thinking more of a contradiction in a deeper way: other passages of the Bible - the Gospels, for instance - have a strong emphasis on forgiveness, while Revelation seems to, well, revel in vengeance and the rejection of forgiveness. The theology of the one is not the theology of the other, IMO.

Click to expand...

this is only because the Gospels are recording Jesus teachings....Jesus was teaching about what we need to do to attain to salvation. He was teaching us how to live in harmony with Gods will so that we can attain to everlasting life. There are only two sides we can be on...Jesus was clear on that when he gave the illustration of the 'sheep and the goats'
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, YOU who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the founding of the world....41 “Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘Be on YOUR way from me, YOU who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.

So Jesus, while he did teach a lot about love, he also stressed what would happen to those who do not take heed of his counsel. It wasnt all sugary cake with icecream and everyone is going to fine so sit back and enjoy a nice cup of tea. There is some very serious talk going on in the gospels and i think people gloss over it because they want to focus only on forgiveness and salvation....well it is forgiveness and salvation for the 'sheep', but prove to be a 'goat' and the situation is not going to be good.

I still want to know how Paul's epistles (the authentic as well as the Deutero) don't completely contradict rule 4.

And how wishing castration on your enemies doesn't violate the others.