the bible canon

Brian Schuh said:

The Ethiopian Orthodox have the largest canon. 81 books if I remember correctly. It is being translated into English. Can't wait to read it.

Click to expand...

Oh man, that one'll be a doozy. Their Old Testament puts even the Eastern Orthodox one to shame with the number of books. Also, can you say "35-book New Testament"? I sure can.

Their 46-book Old Testament might not seem like much, but they also often combine one or several books into one (so for example, 1 and 2 Kings are one book to them). http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

Shiranui117 said:

Hebrews 11:35 refers directly to 2 Maccabees 7, where a mother and their sons refuse to eat pork and be released from prison in hopes of a better resurrection. http://www.usccb.org/bible/2mc/7

In Acts 10:34, Peter is quoting Wisdom of Sirach, 35:15. http://www.usccb.org/bible/sirach/35

Ephesians 6:13-17 is based on Wisdom 5:15-20. http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/5

Hebrews 1:3 makes reference to Wisdom 7:26. http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/7

Romans 1:20-32 paraphrases Wisdom 13-14. http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/13 http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/14

Romans 2:1-16 is based off Wisdom 11-15, and especially 15:1-6. http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/15

James 1:19 and James 3:3-5 are both based off Sirach 5:13-14. http://www.usccb.org/bible/sirach/5

Matthew 27:39-42 references Wisdom 2:18. http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/2

That'll do for starters.

Click to expand...

I find these references unconvincing. For example, in Acts 10:34 the apostle Peter was commenting on God's welcome of Gentiles into the congregation. The apocryphal reference was to something else, and there is no evidence Peter quoted from it.

The Book of Jasher, written at least as early as 2nd Temple era, claims to be the book quoted in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Never been considered for inclusion in canon, but considered to be authentic history. Why wasn't it included?

Shiranui117 :
I have little time but wanted to say I like your point that the modern western texts are part of a much larger ancient library and much of which we read is based on earlier texts. Enoch was obviously the arch-type of base libraries since so much of the New Testament quotes enochian literature.

Brian Schuh:
Your reference to ספר ישר (Sefer Jasher) was good. J’asher means “the right”, “upright”, “approved” or “authentic” and thus Davidson renders it “the authentic record” referred to in Joshua 10:13. (Similarly the LXX according to complutension edition renders it “ του βιβλιου του ευθους (i.e. “the right or correct book in book” similar to Davidsons point that the hebrew for this means, “the authentic record”. Obviously it was included in the writer of biblical Joshuas personal canon at one point since it served as reference material for the author who refers to it.

I think the reason the author of Joshua had to distinguish the history found in biblical Joshua from the “authentic record” was because there were so many records in differing versions from which they had to edit and cull and create the texts they were to use.

For example, in 2 Kings chapter 22, when Hilkiah finds the “book of the law in the house of the LORD.” (kjv) and he delivers this Book to Josiah who then (in Chapter 23) reads to the inhabitants of Jerusalem “all the words of the book of the covenants” .

If one simply refers to Jewish Talmudic history, they will remember that the Priest Hilkiah, in finding a copy of the Torah in the temple, in 2 kings 22:8, actually found three conflicting copies of Torah in the temple (Ginsberg identifies them as the Mugah, Hilleili, Zambuki texts based on Talmudic descriptions of some of the textual conflicts 300, 43:1428) The priests then had to decide which of the three conflicting texts was the “official version to read to the people by King Josiah. Being unable to decide, they made a fourth version by harmonizing the texts using a rule of majority (if two agreed against the third, they used the reading of the two that did agree). This fourth version is the actual text read to the people as described in Old testament Kings according to the Talmud.

It makes perfect historical sense then that the author of Joshua had to distinguish the biblical story given from the “authentic book” ספר (Sefer Jasher) which the story was edited from..

While I very much agree that I wish these ancient books that used to be part of the sacred libraries anciently had been included in the modern sacred library that I grew up with (i.e. the “western canon”, mainly a Codex Bezae based New Testament, KJV, etc.), still I understand some of the culling.

For example, if you’ve ever seen the entire Tanakh on scrolls you can understand just how much space it would take to carry so many texts with you. Editing and culling had to be done. A single text was limited to the size of a scroll and its size was limited to the technology of the time. The simple expediency of space limited the amount of text that one could carry. This necessitated the process of editing not only which texts were most important to keep in a “canon” but which parts of which stories to keep and what to leave out. In fact, the Christians could never create a single collection or “canon” of books in a single text until they adopted the codex rather than the scroll as a medium of writing.

Some of what was left out was probably “relatively unimportant” (e.g. 1 Samuel and additions/correction the DSS texts made possible). However, other texts and other stories seem (to me) to have been important and I wish they had kept them inside the western set of texts.

For example, the Song of Solomon has relatively little historical value compared to texts that describe pre-creation conditions; the origin of Lucifer’s enmity and its relationship to the “Fall” of Adam. The circumstances regarding God’s purpose of creating a mortal experience for spirits and the need for a redeemer and how Jesus’ became chosen, etc, etc.

I wish they had left out Song of Solomon and included some of these themes instead. Without reference to other historical texts, it is very, very difficult to make correct judgments and come to correct understanding regarding the bits and pieces of stories we have in the text.

For example, without additional information from historical books, Moses’ first marriage to “the Ethiopian Woman whom he had married” (num 12:1) Without any other data than this statement, Moses appears to be a hypocrite for marrying outside of Israel (since the Israelites were to avoid marriage to pagans). WITH the additional detail associated with the history of this marriage gained from outside histories, then, Moses becomes an even greater religious character and his life takes on greater depth and honor.

The Story of Joseph and his Brothers when they return to Egypt is another example of a story which changes profoundly in meaning, depth and character with added history of the original story. (Old Testament | Genesis 44:5) The depth of the repentance of the brothers and Josephs various tests of them is lost to the current western version of the biblical texts. WITH the additional information from historical texts, the story takes on profound undercurrents regarding the wonderful change of heart of the brothers and the depth of their repentance and the new established brotherhood of Joseph and the brothers.

Sometimes there is nothing of the early stories in our modern, western text, at other times there is only a word or two, which, as often as not, seems to add confusion rather than illumination to the current texts. For example, when Josephs servants come upon the brothers in Genesis 44:5 and, on Josephs orders, pretend to “find” Joseph’s silver cup, they say “ Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?” Without the fuller history from other texts, the Christian reader is left to wonder why a patriarch is engaging in "divining" in the first place, and what it means that Joseph uses a silver cup to “divine” rather than revelation from God (which is the typical procedure in religion).

This simple statement leaves out an entire story of Joseph pretending to use this cup to “divine” where the brothers are to sit at a table according to their birth mother, and it's absence obscures the deep motive as to why Joseph claimed the brothers would be most interested in this cup to use "in divining". The story is simply missing and the reader is left to make unusual assumptions based on a scrap of a reference.

When Potter’s wife, Zelicah, wishes to seduce Joseph, the current text tells us nothing of multiple prior attempts; and tells us almost nothing of the story of how Joseph is saved from execution since other versions reveal how it was made clear that Zelicah was lying. With the more detailed story, it makes sense what was happening and why the tear in Joseph garment saves him from execution and proves Zelicah was lying about him.

Even Abraham has been maligned due to lack of reference. For example, the current O.T. version of him “lying to the Egyptian guards” to “save himself” often has him branded as a coward in this single incident in Genesis ch 12. Once, on a forum, a Christian poster lamented that Abraham “pimped Sarah, his wife” and used the story of Genesis ch 12 as a reference to support this theory. Once one looks at fuller versions of the story (e.g. Qumran library) then Abraham is vindicated.

Early textual traditions give us the needed information to prevent us from making such profound errors in assumptions. For example, the various versions of the “Palm and the Cedar” stories, make clear that Abraham is instructed in a dream/revelation as to what he is to do. He was not a coward. The various renditions of Abraham crying outside the walls of Pharoah's home (after Pharoah took Sarah), praying for the safety and the release of Sarah tell us he was no “pimp”.

The point is, that just as the Old Testament contains references that cannot BE understood in their correct context without reference to other versions of the story, the New Testament is similarly difficult to understand without reference to other historical references that are found in texts that used to be part of biblical history.

Kudos to you for this historical point

Clear
σεακτζω

POST ONE OF THREE

Neal A. Maxwell once quipped that one day the restorationists would have to use “little red wagons” to carry their scriptures to Church. His quip represents the expectation that many other texts would discovered that would join the texts we have that serve as yet more witnesses of Jesus as the Redeemer.

This statement is becoming almost prophetic as the early Judeo-Christian religious documents become more available for public examination. And, there are more of them than ever. There have been more sacred and ancient Judeo-Christian texts discovered in the 19th-20th centuries than in all other centuries combined and importantly, they treat specific religious themes that form wonderful periscopes of early judeo-christian religion.

The increasing importance of pseudographia as a genre of literature

Speaking of the Jewish pseudoepigraphs, Charlesworth proposed biblical exegesis is part of the same process involved in forming this group of pseudepigraphia. He is converted to this view partly because many pseudepigraphs predate the Maccabean rebellion and because of the obvious close relationshilp of certain pseudepigrapha with canonical text (e.g. enoch, jubilees, etc.)

As part of this evolving scholars worldview, the great expert on Jewish epigraph claims “the early Jewish pseudepigrapha were fashioned in Early Judaism” and importantly, he explained that “The crucible of the Pseudepigrapha was Torah interpretation”. This is an extremely important point since, if it is correct it means these epigraphs are interpretive and they indicate what meanings the Torah held for the Jews that produced them.

The initial characterization of these texts has rapidly changed among scholars of the texts. Initially they were often described as representing “fringe” theology, but that has changed as well.

The view that epigraphs had a great deal more theological import than was known initially has been gaining popularity for some time. However, this scholarly view could not have been initiate until after their discovery and study. Thus, the view of Charlesworth that “Some pseudepigrapha probably did rival and replace canonical works in some communities, for example in the groups that produced the Books of Enoch (c.f. also 11QTemple and 1QpHab); but the pseudepigrapha should not be portrayed as rivals of canon. They are supporters of it.”has only gained strength and popularity among scholars of these texts.

It’s been long recognized among the textual scholars that Charlesworth and other scholars are correct that “The pseudepigrapha were not important only in some groups, but were significant in many groups, and are essential sources for any attempt to portray early Jewish life and theology.” This is why his later premise came to be that “If we wish to understand the pseudepigraph, we must dismiss any residue left by the once dominant contention that they were insignificant products of Jewish groups on the fringes of a Normative Judaism.”

Also, as Talmudists coordinated with textual scholars, the effort became syncretic and wonderful. The textual scholars could see the change in character of “early” versus “later” jewish texts and the talmudists could explain why this happened.

Though some doctrines were simply lost to abandonment, others, such as those involving pre-creation/pre-birth existence were prohibited by rabbinic Judaism (which came to be a dominant Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the loss of the Priestly, and the vertical, and other Judaisms).

MULTIPLE JUDAISMS

The recognition that Judaism was no more monolithic than Chritianity with all it’s various competing versions and movement underlies Charlesworths’ declaration that the use of the terms “normative” and “orthodox” are “to be dismissed from scholarly works” and he takes McEleney to task for even using this term (in 1973 in McEleneys book on “Orthodoxy” in Judaism).

“The Qumran group, the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and virtually every group in Early Judaism of which we have any knowledge, thought of themselves as ‘Israelites’. Each would have described their own peculiar thoughts as the only right belief. They are so diverse that one cannot describe them as representing a common orthodoxy.” (Charlesworth). This view has become obvious ONLY as the texts became more available, more well known and more studied.

Morton Smiths early observation, was that “If there was any such thing, then, as an “orthodox Judaism”, it must have been that which is now almost unknown to us, the religion of the average “people of the land”. But the different parts of the country were so different, such gulfs of feeling and practice separated Idumea, Judea, Caesarea, and Galilee, that even on this level there was probably no more agreement between them than between any one of the and a similar area in the Diaspora.”

In what is, from scholarly hindsight, obvious, the model is that that the various modern Jews had already undergone significant schism from the earlier “orthodox Judaism” (if that term is even proper anymore) in the same manner that Christianity with its multiple splinter groups, all who feel “orthodox” and correct in their own theology.

MULTIPLE PROVENTIAL "CANONS"
Since many of the varying texts are productions of these groups, another concept that became obvious was the concept that any arbitrary closed canon was presumptive and provential. This is why Charlesworth pointed to “well-informed” scholars of the texts when “they rightly point to the fact that the canon was not yet closed.”

For example, Rost had already pointed out that the sacred script (inter alia) is used to copy both the Tanach AND many writings NOT in the Tanach (Sirach, Enoch, Jubilees, etc.). Scholars had also noted the claim that the Holy Spirit continued to be alive in the Qumran community (partly as a indication of their regard for the Torah).

Just as it became clear that certain “new” doctrines such as Pre-existence were not at all new, but simply a return to ancient doctrines that were relatively unknown in our age, the pseudoepigraphs demonstrated that “The so-called ‘new’ laws and ordinances were considered ancient….The new was an exegesis of the old.” (Charlesworth)

Zeitlin had contended initially that much of the pseudepigrapha were written “in opposition to normative Judaism. Normative Judaism regarded the Apocalyptists as destructive.” (in “Jewish apoc Lit, 1974). However, his reasoning was that these texts did not support his modern theology. This is the same reason he became disenchanted with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and he even came to claim these documents were “Christian” in nature because they did not support his modern concepts of Judaism. However, once the pseudepigraphs became more studied, it became more obvious that the pseudepigrapha were not anti-canonical works nor anti-Jewish as their close relationship to earliest rabbinic thought in pre-70 CE Judaism became clear.

Though Zeitlin claimed the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls were “Christian” and some felt that these texts were contaminated by non-Jewish ideas it became obvious that much of what was seen as “foreign”, was indeed “jewish” and “old” but critics were simply unaware OF their providence as authentic jewish concepts.

The initial tendency for scholars to emphasize too much the visionary aspect of the Pseudepigrapha initially caused them to systematically neglecting the pseudepigraphical writings until it became obvious that much of both Jewish AND Christian literature in the early ages contained revelation as a common religious characteristic. This initial tendency to difficulty overcoming the visionary and prophetic aspects of texts lead to a neglect of the actual theology within the pages.

The changes in the attitudes of scholars feels like the texts are funneling multiple scholarly conclusions in directions that are harmonious and syncretic and that are creating wonderful and better models of early Judaism and early Christianity. This feels like a “silent revolution” is going on surrounding the changing nature of discussions regarding early Judeo-Christian doctrine. MANY great Scholars of early texts are making this shift.

For example, Michael Heiser phD is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software accomplished his PhD (a version is available on line) on the theme of henotheism in early Israel. If you look at the list of scholars Dr. Heiser uses for support of his thesis (many of whom are developing theses along very similar lines and for similar reasons using similar texts…), it in quite long and includes many notable names such as Frank Moore Cross, David Noel Freedman, N. Habel, Nathan McDonald, P. Sanders, Yair Hoffman, J.T.A.M. van Ruiten, in fact some scholars found themselves moving towards very discrete equivalent points at the same time (e.g. B. Metzger and H.H. Rowley work on early John in early Christianity)


A SIMPLE HISTORICAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING ENOCHIAN LITERATURE

The Enochian literature existed before the New Testament existed and it was incredibly influential in Judeo-Christian history. For example, it is obvious that early Christian, including those who wrote the New Testament had read the book of Enoch and used it in their writings. The great apocryphologist R.H. charles reminds us that "nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it, and were more or less influenced by it in thought and diction," and he reminds us further that "it is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch by St. Jude, and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. . . . With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book."

In his initial study of Jewish Enoch, Charles quotes no less than 128 places in the New Testament where Enoch is either quoted or influences a quote. The Enochian influence is so great that Charles declares that "The influence of I Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books taken together." He further lists some thirty passages in early orthodox Jewish and Christian writings in which the book of Enoch is mentioned specifically, plus numerous citations from the book that are found in the important Jewish apocalyptic writings of Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra, and quotations from Enoch found in more than thirty Christian Patristic writers.

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

POST TWO OF THREE

To these influences, we might add the tremendous and obvious wealth of Enoch lore contained in the Zohar. Even the Pistis Sophia, (an important literary link between sectaries in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Palestinian Christianity and Judaism, claims to contain important material taken from "the two Books of Jeu which Enoch has written” Another quote from Pistis Sophia : “They should find the mysteries which are in the Book of Jeu which I caused Enoch to write in Paradise . . . [which I spake out of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life], and I caused him 37 to place them in the rock of Ararad."

MANY of the testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs contain the phrase "I read from the Book of Enoch...", (and then the Patriarch would relate what was read - usually it related to immoralities or disobedience the sons of the Patriarch would do that would cause their descendants misery...)

The Christians got their enthusiasm for the book of Enoch as well as the book itself from the Jews. It was the Book of Enoch, Charles hailed as : "the most important pseudepigraph of the first two centuries B.C.".

He had ample reason to make this claim: For examples :The Hasidic writings of the time as well as the later Cabalistic works show dependence on Enoch. Large parts of the lost Book of Enoch were included in the Pirke of Rabbi Eliezser and in the Hechalot (both highly respected works for scholars). Some of the oldest and most important fragments of Enoch have turned up among the Dead Sea/Qumranic Library. In fact, outside of the Pentateuch and psalms, there were more copies of Enoch discovered in this ancient library than any other old testament book. (Other than their Enoch, no other old testament book outside the pentateuch and psalms even reached double digits in terms of copies found in their library.)

I do not believe that a scholar of Early Christianity CAN understand the early Christian doctrines and the evolution of Christian doctrines without a study of Enoch as part of the library of texts which were popularly used among early Judeo-Christian literature and “proto-christianity”. Nor do I believe that one can make full correlation of early Christian literature without referring to the various Enochs. If one makes a study of Judeo-Christianity of this era, one will end up studying enoch. (In fact, when one reads the New Testament, they are reading references from Enochian literature, they just didn’t know it.)

THE ISSUE OF SOURCE AND AUTHORSHIP
Non-historians complained that no one really knows who the initial author was, nor who the authors of syncretions were in ancient texts. However, this point is also true of New Testament literature. We do not know and cannot know who wrote any of the Books of the Old or New Testament, but instead attribute their authorship by tradition.

It’s long been observed that moses could not have written of his own death and so he did not write all of the texts attributed to his name. If one rejects the Enochian literature based on the fact that we do not know who the author is, then this logic requires us to reject New Testament and Old testament scriptures as well (since we can prove authorship on none of them). It is a silly criteria upon which one should either accept OR reject a historical text.

The actual ancient origin of Enochian literature is lost to history, however it is, obviously old-testament era in its origin. When Barnabas and New Testament Jude and the apostles and jesus quoted from Enochian literature, they were not quoting a recent fiction novel.

I Enoch had long been recognized as “the largest and, after the canonical book of Daniel, the most important of the Jewish apocalyptic works which have so recently (this in 1916) come to be recognized as supplying most important data for the critical study of NT ideas and praseology.”(A.L. Davies, “Enoch, Book of,” in Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Apostolic church 1:334.)

This work, which had existed long before this, was translated into Ethiopic about A.D. 500 (O. Ploger, “Henochbucher, “Die Religion in Geshichte und Gegenwart, p: 222). The leaves of Enoch the University of Michigan received in 1930 were matched by a few more from the same text that Frederick Kenyon found a year later, all from the 4th century. Van Andel tells us that it was typical of the “edifying literature in Christian circles from the 3rd to the 6th(?) centuries,” ((Van Andel, Structuur, p 3) again reminding us of the influential place enochian literature had in the literature of the early Christian church.

Jellineck’s story of finding Hebrew Enoch texts in the Bet ha-Midrash reminds us that enoch was not simply influential among the Christians, but it’s theological influence was felt among the Jews. In 1859 Jellinek suggested a Hebrew enoch had circulated among the jews. “The Karaite Salmopn b. Jerucham in the 10th century, Moses of Leon [12th century] and the Zohar toward the end of the 13th century all cite from a Book of Enoch” . In Volume 2 of the Bet ha-Midrash, Jellinek gives us the text of a “Book of Enoch”…” (BHM, 2:xxx-xxxii) The next volume he notes the Great Hechalot, a book, “parts of it appear in the Book of Enoch, that provided the source of the Christian-Essene and Jewish-Essene literature.” (BHM 3:vii, 83-102)

In Bet ha-Midrash, volume 4, jellinek refers to text to a Life of Enoch from the Sefer ha-Yashar, using even older sources and announced to the world that this provided “a new confirmation that the entire Enoch saga and the Enoch books were known to the Jews, and were only allowed to fall into neglect after the time when a growing Christianity displayed a dogmatic preference to this cycle (Sage)”. Thus, the Christian adoption of enochian literature, soured the Jews on Enoch. (BHM 4:xi-xii, 129-132). Remember, this was the theory BEFORE the Talmudist pointed out that ALL inquiries and literature referring to Pre-existence were banned by the increasingly popular rabbinic Judaism. Thus, this sort of literature was lost in a single generation to that Judaism.

In volume 5, in 1872 jellinek announced the vindication of his work on Enochian literature. “In [Bet ha-Midrash] III, 1855, p. xxiii, I suggested that several version of the Hechalot themes attributed to the Wisdom of Enoch must be in existence. And so also the primitive…Book of Enoch was put together from various smaller works, which had been traced back to Enoch!” The study of Jewish apocalyptic literature was again initiated in 1857 by M. Lilgenfeld and it revealed that (thanks to references in by XII patriarchs, Jubilles and other works, that Enoch was “the first” and “most important” of all the Palestinian apocalypses.” (Pierre Batiffol, “Apocalypses Apocryphes,” in V. vigouroux, ed. Dictionaire de la Bible, 1895-1912 1:757) “Of all the Palestinian writings” (the wonderful Catholic scholar J.B. Frey said), “the book of enoch seems to have surpassed all the others in antiquity and in importance.” (frey, “Apocryphes,” 1:357)

Though “Christian enoch” (i.e. the Greek Enoch) was important, the discovery of Enoch among the dead sea scrolls in such great numbers is the discovery showing Hebrew Enoch was first. In 1956, Father J.T. Milik announced eight different enoch fragments among the dead sea texts. I Enoch in Aramaric and an Aramaic book III (which was superior to the Ethiopian in some ways). There was also an epistle of Enoch to Shamazya and his friends.

F.M. Cross noted that the Pesher on Habakkuk was “an unknown work related to the Enoch Literature.” (Frank M. Cross, “The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (feb 1954) 3) Even the fantastic Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran begins with five columns that “deal with the birth of Noah in a manner that has no direct relationship at all to the brief biblical account in Genesis 5, 28-29,” but instead “resembles chapter cvi of the Book of Enoch in most essential points.” Terrien, “Enoch, Books of,” 10:394)

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

POST THREE OF THREE

I hope it is becoming clear that one cannot read the old testament, the new testament, the early Judao-christian Literature or any judao-christian sacred literature from the earliest periods without coming face to face with enochian literature. When you read the Old or New Testament, you are reading references from enochian literature. It is an important text since most of the early doctrinal roads, passed through enochian influence.

All scholars on enoch will agree that the ultimate beginning of the enochian literature (or it’s many, many references and parts) remain completely unknown to history. However, all agree that the book of enoch derives from earlier writings. This is obvious since, many of the oldest sources we have claim to, go back to enoch.

You can seek for the source material for the most ancient of texts (which never turn up) or simply accept the assertion of the writers of Jubilees and the 12 Patriarchs do and assume that there was an Enoch which himself began the enochian literature just as we assume there was a Moses who wrote and began the Mosaic traditions we all discuss.

I referenced many, many other texts which were sacred to early Judao-Christianity. Referencing texts that were important to early Judo-christianity demonstrates not only the deep and firm contextual milieu of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of spirits in this time period, but the pervasiveness of the doctrine as well. Readers with greater historical understanding see the importance of this.

The base and core doctrinal themese of early Judao-christianity are somewhat independent of their various textual sources (if one is looking at themes that remain constant over a large portion of early Judao Christian Literature – these are the consistent, “orthodox doctrines” of ancient Christianity). For example, whether I am a 21st century historian reading New Testament Jude who himself is quoting from Enoch as a scriptural reference, or if I am a 1st Century Christian reading from the Enoch text itself, the theme is the same :

“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all...,” (New Testament Jude 1:14-15)“ Is the same theme as enoch, whom the writer of New Testament Jude is quoting :
“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them...” (Old Testament I Enoch ch 2)

When the writer of New Testament Jude is quoting old testament Enoch, he is not only quoting the same words from Enoch, but he is referring to the same doctrine as well. When Jesus and the apostles quote or refer to Enoch, they are referring to earlier scriptural texts, just as Jude is referring to an earlier scripture. The same principle of doctrinal equivalence holds true for other Judao-christian texts such as :

The apocalypse of Sedrach
The apocalypse of Abraham
First Enoch
Second Enoch
Third Enoch
Ecclesiates (Old Testament)
The Gospel of Thomas
The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Clementine Recognitions
Job (Old Testament)
The Second treatise of the Great Seth
Testaments of the twelve patriarchs (Napthali)
The Jewish Haggadah (related to the Talmud)
The Jewish Zohar

The same principle holds true if one is quoting
Ancient Christian sermons
Ancient Christian Hymns
Ancient Christian Diaries
Ancient Christian novels

The size and scope of the many genres of text is amazing. If one picks out ONLY Old Testament pseudoepigraphs, and ONLY those translated into english and ONLY those that were famous and influential and ONLY those that Charlesworth felt were important enough to make it into his sample of these texts, then we are speaking of 2000 pages of small print texts. The actual size of the sacred library itself is many, many times that size, much of which has not even been translated from the texts language.

As an aside note, when we speak of the various genres of early extra-biblical texts, we are not speaking merely of the “Ancients” who used such books as sacred texts, nor are we speaking merely of Enoch. For examples : When Erasmus debates Luther in the famous tischreden, he quotes from SIRACH, which is outside of the current western canon (AND, Erasmus specifically argues that it is “authoritative”).

Even if one is able to only narrow considerations of a single book such as 4th Ezra it may help to understand the issues we all deal with. For example, 4th Ezra was wildly popular and had an extremely wide theological influence even beyond the reformers.

Bishop Latimer was about to be burned at the Stake (I think in 1555), he refers to Ezra 14:25. When individuals quote him ("We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace in England, as I trust shall never be put out.") they simply are unaware of that he (and they) are quoting 4th Ezra.

Christopher Columbus quotes scripture to the Sovereigns of Spain to encourage them to lend financial support for his voyages : “On the third day you commanded the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before you”

Columbus is using this scripture to support his planned voyage, the potential length of which is partly estimated by use of this scripture. Columbus is quoting 4th Ezra and he believes in it enough to risk his own life and the life of his shipmates on its data
.
The Great William Whiston (Isaac Newton’s successor) issued 90 scriptural proofs that then end of the age was near. One third of these come from 4th Ezra alone.

Milton, the great writer who “knew all things hebrew”, repeatedly references Ezra in his writings. The examples can go on and on. The point is, that such people believed such texts were sacred; they put their faith in such texts as sacred; and they used such text to discuss their personal theologies. Modern, western christians may not use these early texts as early Christians did, but historically, one cannot argue that THEY used them anciently (and not so anciently) They believed in these texts and USED these texts. If you are ever going to discover what they ancients believed, then you will have to study the texts they read.

One could create similar examples from other books as well. Galileos Daughter, (Maria), when writing to him in his despondency, refers to the doctrine of the Winter-time of the Just, and this comes from Hermas, which is in early 4th Century Codex Sinaiticus New Testament.

The point in all of this is that Scholars have already changed their position on the vast literature created by early Judeo-Christianity and these significant changes in attitude are filtering down to non-scholars as well. It is changing the historical concept of Judeo-Christianity and models of what it was like in very important and basic ways and as we see the import and influenze of these books we are looking at them with new eyes and greater favor.

I apologize that this posting was so long, but it really is a summary of just a couple of issues that are important to early Judeo-Christian literature.

Good journey

Clear
σισιειω - edited and corrected mistakes and redundancy on 5-23 , 9 am PST.

Gday all,

It is an all too common claim that the Council of Nicea decided the books of the Bible.

But,
it is not true - it's just an urban legend.

The Council of Nicea argued about Arius and the date of Easter mainly.

The Council did NOT make any pronouncements on the books of the bible.

This can easily be proved because we still have extant :

• the documents produced at the council detailing their decisions (creed, canons, letter)
• several accounts of the Council, some from contemporary writers.

You can check these documents here -
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

You can read a good article about it here -
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

You can read about the formation of the canon here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

And more details here:
http://ntcanon.org/

Which all shows conclusively that the Council of Nicea made no decisions on the canon of the bible.

The NT canon was not decided by a council at all. It formed by consensus over some centuries.


Kapyong

Kapyong said:

Gday all,
It is an all too common claim that the Council of Nicea decided the books of the Bible.
But,
it is not true - it's just an urban legend.
The Council of Nicea argued about Arius and the date of Easter mainly.
The Council did NOT make any pronouncements on the books of the bible.
This can easily be proved because we still have extant :

• the documents produced at the council detailing their decisions (creed, canons, letter)
• several accounts of the Council, some from contemporary writers.

You can check these documents here -
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
You can read a good article about it here -
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
You can read about the formation of the canon here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
And more details here:
http://ntcanon.org/
Which all shows conclusively that the Council of Nicea made no decisions on the canon of the bible.
The NT canon was not decided by a council at all. It formed by consensus over some centuries.
Kapyong

Click to expand...

So, then you are saying the church already recognized or considered the 'first-century books' as the authoritative Word from God.
That makes Bible canon as established early on the stage, so the church did Not establish Bible canon but merely testified to what was already accepted early on by God.
The apocryphal books then simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the established ' 66 ' books of Bible canon.
Thus the ancient manuscripts support Bible canon.

Arius' conclusion was right:
God is unbegotten and without a beginning. The Son, because he is begotten can not be God in the sense that the Father is. The Son did Not exist from all eternity but was created and exists by the will of the Father. - Arius' words are in harmony with what gospel writer John wrote at Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.

Kapyong said (post #48) "It is an all too common claim that the Council of Nicea decided the books of the Bible. But, it is not true - it's just an urban legend. The Council of Nicea argued about Arius and the date of Easter mainly. The Council did NOT make any pronouncements on the books of the bible."
URAVIP2ME replied (post #49) "So, then you are saying the church already recognized or considered the 'first-century books' as the authoritative Word from God.
That makes Bible canon as established early on the stage, so the church did Not establish Bible canon but merely testified to what was already accepted early on by God.
The apocryphal books then simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the established ' 66 ' books of Bible canon.
Thus the ancient manuscripts support Bible canon."

URAVIP2ME : It's difficult to see how your re-wording is remotely related to Kapyongs conclusion OR the data in his references since they indicate the opposite of your conclusion. Kapyongs' point was that Nicea did not decide biblical canon.

The references he gave are supporting data as well as a summary of other data related to various "canons" and a presentation as to events underlying the current western canon. If you disagree with these scholars take on history you could offer your own historical data and rationale as to why these biblical scholars and historians are, in this case incorrect, and why you believe your "modern" western canon is correct, and why the various earlier canons are incorrect.

For example, I disagree with Carriers description of Jamnia. If I want to express the opinion that he is incorrect in his presentation, then I would present historical data that explains why I think he is incorrect, (rather than mischaracterize his conclusions).

For example relating to geographical difference : Why would your modern bible and it's Western Biblical Canon have an advantage over the Eastern biblical canon read by eastern Christians?

For example relating to differences in Eras : Why would your modern bible and it's canon, have an advantage over the 3rd-4th Century Christian New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus?

Clear
nesevio

Gday URAVIP2ME and all,

URAVIP2ME said:

So, then you are saying the church already recognized or considered the 'first-century books' as the authoritative Word from God.
That makes Bible canon as established early on the stage, so the church did Not establish Bible canon but merely testified to what was already accepted early on by God.
The apocryphal books then simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the established ' 66 ' books of Bible canon.
Thus the ancient manuscripts support Bible canon.

Click to expand...

Actually no, I am not saying that at all.

In fact the early Christian church was a 'riotous diversity' of beliefs,
and included many differing canons for many centuries.

The first formal canon was by Marcion around 140, who had one Gospel and ten letters of Paul. Nothing else.

Various Christian writers in the early centuries listed their own different opinions on the NT canon.
Here is a useful chart from the valuable reference site NTcanon.org showing this :

The columns across are various writers like e.g. Ignatius (135?), Marcion (c.140), Justin Martyr (c.150), Irenaeus (c.180) ... to Athanasius (367), and the Vulgate (late 300s).
The ticks etc. show which NT books they accept or quote.

Here is the other chart for books now called apocrypha, but included in many early canons :


Early Christians disagreed on the NT canon for centuries - even at the time of Nicea (325) and the famous 50 Constantine bibles a few years afterwards, which still included e.g. Hermas and Barnabas. Paul's alleged letter to the Laodiceans lingered on for centuries more.

The very first Christian writer to list an NT canon just like ours was not until Athanasius in his Easter letter of 367.

The creation of the Vulgate (the Latin version of the Bible) by Jerome's team around 400 essentially settled it (excepting for Laodiceans.)

(Oddly enough, the church did not get around to officially declaring the canon until over a millenium later - at Trent in the 1500s.)

Here is an image from Codex Amiatinus (an immense tome, measuring 191⁄4 inches high, 133⁄8 inches in breadth, and 7 inches thick, and weighs over 75 pounds), a Latin Vulgate Bible from around 700 :


The Vulgate (meaning 'common' version) was used for over a millenium while the Greek originals were forgotten.


Kapyong

rusra02 said:

I find these references unconvincing. For example, in Acts 10:34 the apostle Peter was commenting on God's welcome of Gentiles into the congregation. The apocryphal reference was to something else, and there is no evidence Peter quoted from it.

Click to expand...

What about the rest of them? Will you dismiss 10 different references just because one seems tenuous, without investigating the others?

I might point out that a Jew would also find Christian citations of the Tanakh in attempting to prove Jesus' Messiahship unconvincing for the same reasons you gave.

To be included in the Old Testamant, a book had to be written or endorsed by a prophet.
To be included in the New Testameent, a book had to be written or endorsed by an apostle

Not sure what you mean by 'attack' I appreciate many books.
If you mean question if something is from God, being discerning is reasonable
can't swallow everything hook line and sinker, can you?

by the way as far as the claim 'the first cannon was written by Marcion around 140,' Marcion (pronounced martian) believed the God of the old and new testaments were different didn't agree with Jesus who said 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' and Jesus did accept the Old testament.

The claim is wrong as there was a cannon of the OT and well accepted as the Jews in ROmans are said to be 'the customdians of the law'
and they handed down the 39 books

Gday whirlingmerc and all,

whirlingmerc said:

by the way as far as the claim 'the first cannon was written by Marcion around 140,' Marcion (pronounced martian) believed the God of the old and new testaments were different didn't agree with Jesus who said 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' and Jesus did accept the Old testament.
The claim is wrong as there was a cannon of the OT and well accepted as the Jews in ROmans are said to be 'the customdians of the law'
and they handed down the 39 books

Click to expand...

Note the difference between canon and cannon - Boom !

Also note Marcion was not pronounced 'martian' but 'Markyon'.

The first NT canon was indeed Marcion's.

There is no evidence of anything like an NT canon before then.


Kapyong

Gday whirlingmerc and all,

whirlingmerc said:

To be included in the New Testameent, a book had to be written or endorsed by an apostle

Click to expand...

Actually, not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who ever met the alleged Jesus.

That's the firm consensus of NT scholars.

Faithful believers haven't heard the news yet.


Kapyong

Hi Folks..

Part 1

The canon gospels - sorry to be blunt - but they are frauds - openly admitted even IN the gospels themselves...For instance - authors - claimed to be written by the ACTUAL Disciples whos names they bare - that is the church agenda to make us believe and fully accept that these books are legitimate authentic teaching from those who walked and talked with my mate Christ - but sorry to be blunt - the gospels are NO SUCH THING - as actually, none of the authors met either Christ OR disciple or were even living at that time themselves - these books are written CENTURIES AFTER the events they describe - and are NOT written by ANY direct first hand witness to the events !!

Read each gospel carefully - it soon becomes clear the author is writing a second hand account - or better yet - skip just to the end of each - and see clear admissions that actually state the author is RETELLING other TRADITIONAL narratives that the author BELIEVES to be "truth". Make no mistake, that is NOT Matthew, Mark Luke or John writing those books - it CANNOT BE - because ACTUALLY - these books in their current form DO NOT EXIST in the time of Christ - and will not exist at all yet for another FOUR CENTURIES !!

These gospels in their ordained bible CANON form - first appear in history at the time of the famous Nicea Council where basically, a ROMAN emporer Constantine,as we know - ordered the formation of a single religion from the multitude of "christian sects" that arose after they murdered my mate Christ..There was over a hundred such sects in existance - all claiming a slightly different version of truth - all causing no end of upset for the ROMAN OCCUPYING FORCES...So work it out - Constantine did - he gathered them ALL together and ORDERED them to bring ALL their religious texts..This meant there were numerous factions numerous scrolls,tomes gospels works......Of these Constantine had them select those that were "mainstream",most in accord with each other - anything they couldnt agree on he made them discard - bascially as said, he just wants peace and quiet from these trouble makers,so he DICTATES the terms of their religion,its so called "truth" - and thus he cements his authority,establishes his hold firmly - adopts this new religion as Romes official religion - then uses Romes MILITARY might in a series of CONQUEST and invasions - all the while expanding ROME under the disguise of "spiritual truth"....The ROMAN CATHOLIC church was formed as a figure head authority - but it was always about material possession,control,dominance,MORTAL POWER and station - spiritual truth was forgotten the moment they hung my mate on that tree - and this "church" has spent all its time and resources hunting out and destroying all forms of Christs ORIGINAL TEACHINGS in order to secure its own power and status,at the direct expense of mans spiritual truth..

The CANON - are NOT the ORIGINAL gospels of the Disciples !!

The canon we have now - was MANUFACTURED - like cut n paste - from all those HUNDREDS of PRE EXISTANT manuscripts that once existed..Such ORIGINAL and authentic books DO EXIST even today - but as said this church hunted them down - tortured and murdered any and all who knew and understood their truth..They literally INVENTED an "enemy" - the Gnostic heretic - and outlawed and forbad any and all forms of DIRECT spiritual wisdom...Basically - anybody caught doing anything "spiritual" was condemned unless it was a Catholic ritual - so in other words they monopolised truth - forced their version upon us all and literally MURDERED all those who saw it differently !!

Thus - they forced upon us these gospels as if they are legitimate truth - but they NEVER WERE - they are at best - a twisted half truth - for they do contain some things that Christ said and did - the bare essential teaching is there - but this is twisted to suit church agenda of domination - and all the crucial teaching - metaphysical truth of Who and what we are - how we came to actually BE - the truth of the heirachy of Creation for instance - all purposefully omitted - and as said,anyone who came to know these truths was hunted down and eradicated !! In the ORIGINAL gospels though - we learn literally everything - from my Fathers first stirring thought through to mankind finally walks the Earth - and beyond even to what to expect once we shed this temporary form at death..Literally everything laid out in fine and intricate detail..The truth of ALL truth - spoken by One who claimed to be directly from the SOURCE of Creation itslef..

We should pause there - ask ourselves one crucial question - WHY DID THEY MURDER HIM ??????

A "god" has an established religion for MILLENIA - it tells its people to EXPECT Christ to come - and yet when my mate arrives,the followers of the god MURDER Him - establish a NEW religion in His name - and set about dominating the entire world under its disguise...See here - the god - had done similar already to the jews hadnt it ?...Laid down all manner of rules regulations,forbiddances - and any who disobeyed - were DESTROYED by this god and its agents - yes ?...Yes - OT god is a very wrathful vengeful and petty god,smiting us mortals left right and centre,ordering us to commit all manner of wars and what not in its name all the while securing power and dominance over us..Well see clearly - same god - does the same things again - only now its a "world " religion - but same agenda of TOTAL DOMINATION - become SUBJUGATED to this "god" and its demands or be DESTROYED by it....


Hmmmm....Interesting - in the middle of the two religions from the one god - we have CHRIST - who came (from only HE knows where) - said some things that obviously upset the status quo - to the point they eventually kill Him and the rest is twisted history as we know (explained above)....So - WHAT DID HE SAY - that got everyone so angry that they kill HIM ??...........WHAT DID HE SAY - that caused the new religion to hunt out and destroy HIS ORIGINAL TEACHING - all those "gnostic heretics" hunted out and truth eradicated,literally so almost completely,until only CATHOLIC truth remianed ??

WHAT DID CHRIST SAY ???????? - the answers are contained within those ORIGINAL GOSPELS !!!

FIRST HAND and DIRECT TESTIMONY written DIRECTLY by the DISCIPLES in their own hand - own thoughts and understanding - they DO EXIST - and lucky for us all here - in this modern internet age they are again FREELY AVAILABLE.....Now- they are NOT COMPLETE for as said this "church" spent literally centuries and all its military might hunting down and eradicating this truth - yet it persists because it is DIVINE TRUTH that will not be destroyed despite their best efforts..

Read those original gospels and it all becomes blindingly obvious - the religion that bares the name of Christ - is a SHAM - it takes us AWAY from the truth of our Divine Origins - and continues a fraud that was first put upon the jews alone - that fraud is the simple truth that the one we came to know as "god" - is NOT AG GOD AT ALL !!

CHRIST SAID DIRECTLY - the god of the Jews - we know it as Yahweh/Jehovah - He named it as YALDABOATH - said it was not a true god - but an ANGEL that once considered and fully believed itself to be supreme - but that now knew the truth of the situation,but was unwilling to relinquish its "sovereignty" and position above us - even though it had no Divine right to subjugate us so - Christ came to FREE us from the demigod Yahweh - by giving us the truth of ALL CREATION - direct from a great invisible Spirit that caused all else to exist - Our Father as HE named it - told us clearly and in great detail - about how and why Yahweh the Angel was CREATED and how and why that one came to believe it was superior when it never was - for that one Yahweh in the bible is NOT the source of Creation itself even though it claimed that honour and title fully (once believed it as truth but now knows it is error) - yet refuse to give up its authority so Christ came directly FROM THE SOURCE to intercede on OUR behalf !!

Part 2

And there it is clear to see - the god Yahweh was a demigod - a usurper - claiming Divine authority that it had no rights to claim - it is not a god at all - but rather - in our modern understanding - we have termed it an ARCHON - a much lesser entity - Semi Divine at best - a CREATURE formed by same Divine process that forms all else - but NOT the cause or source OF that Creation Process - that alone is the province of my Father and the Trinity mind that starts all existance - Christ is integral to that Trinity the fully Sentient Source of ALL creation - integral to that Primal existance - Yahweh though - god of the bible - is a CREATURE - a PRODUCT of the creation process - he comes into existance much MUCH later in successive creative acts - he is one among some 360 others - and this realm alone is seperated and isolated from all the rest..(at first - and this is the essential reason why Christ took mortal form - to literally rejoin these two seperate and forgotten realms as ONE existance fully under the domain of Our Father)....

Christ came - began to teach of this greater and legitimate Divine Source - and proved it time and time again of course - countless MIRACLES - magick and sorcery were very well understood back then - such things were once very common indeed - but NONE - and I mean absolutely none, could for instance - oh I dunno - cure LEPROSY - or RAISE THE DEAD - yet for Christ these things are easy - but really that s a whole thread just on its own.....For now I will just state - he came spoke this truth - taught of the true Divine - told us actually,how WE alone without aid from any priest or external authority whatsoever,could indeed DIRECTLY COMMUNE with this most Divine legitimate god - no priest clergy relgion or middleman needed at all.....

See the problem for the ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY..??...

They say - we are gods agents = PAY US and DO AS WE TELL YOU - bring sacrifice - wait - we will do a "ritual" and a little magick on your behalf - you will need to devote yourself to our temple to acheive this - and maybe,MAYBE IF this "god" things your worthy - then perhaps you will get your "prayer answered"......BUT LOOK - here is Christ - and He saud - FORGET THOSE CHARLATANS - He ACTUALLY SAID as recorded in the ORIGINAL gospel of THOMAS - DAMN the Pharisee who neither know truth nor allow you to have truth either - COME AWAY FROM THE TEMPLE He said - HATE YOUR PARENTS (making sense now isnt lol) - those priests and that religon MISLEAD you He said - thats not a TRUE god - its an Angel that has tricked you...He then says - come to ME though - and I WILL TEACH YOU FOR FREE how to do ALL THE THINGS THAT I CAN DO - you will BECOME LIKE ME as I show you DIRECTLY WHO and WHAT you ACTUALLY are ( a living part of this fully Divine spirit,Our Father) - and thus, as He promised, this "Kingdom is revelaed upon the Earth" - but there is NO PLACE - and NO NEED for any religious institution - no place and no need for a PRIEST - for each and every person has it WITHIN THEM to literally BECOME DIVINE,right here,right now - and Christ was showing uas all HOW to do this...KNOW THIS TRUTH HE said - and it shall set you FREE !!!

All this new radical Divine truth - was most obviously a direct and immediate threat to the established priesthood and the established "god" they served..Realise this - the first miracle my mate did - He healed a leper - said to the man look,dont make a fuss,but PLEASE,go straight to the temple and SHOW THEM what I have done....PEACEFUL - no fuss at all......He wants to get the pristhood on side - prove His claim in a quiet controlled manner,for He knows fully,He is about to blow the world apart in social terms - for as said NO PRIEST OF YAHWEH CAN HEAL A LEPER !!!!

Let it sink in deep - LEPER - the priest says - this man is INCURABLE - our interventions DO NOT WORK ON LEPROSY - no help at all.. They say because the prayers fail that means that the leper is for whatever reason OUTCAST by THEIR god - like the god is refusing to aid the leper so the society likewise cast them out - made them unclean,shunned...get it now ??.......

Christ comes and HEALS the leper - FULLY and INSTANTLY - with just a touch and a Word - rememeber all that ritual
malarky the priest makes you go through - sacrifice - payment - preparation - time consuming and NO guarantee at all of ANY success - NONE OF THAT FOR CHRIST - a simple touch a single Word - the man is WHOLE again.....Let it sink in deep.......No priest of Yahweh could match Him - and when He told them directly - I can do these things and you cannot,this is because your god is a fraud and not what it claims to be - they obviously become very threatened in their position and status,dont you think ?..About to lose it all to a man who has such wonderous abilities an is sharing them openly and DEFYING THEIR GOD !!! Of course - they act to SILENCE HIM !!!

Hang Him on a tree - get the Romans to do it just in case He is legitimate - no doubt they fear my Father is a petty vengeful god like their Yahweh is - get the Romans to act just in case my Father destroys them in His righteous anger..And then - all hell breaks lose in social temrs - jew tuens on jew - believer on none believer - many factions arise - civil unrest for like THREE HUNDRED YEARS - until finally - old Constantine - a wise man it seems even if a little power thirsty - unites them all under one religion, then uses thet anew tool to further Romes MILITARY dominance - thus the CATHOLIC religious truth pervaded the world as the ONLY truth permitted...Thus the bible many cherish was literally INVENTED to suit an agenda of domination - and thus - the truth of Who and What we are - has been PURPOSEFULLY with held form us all - in order to keep us dominated and to allow the sham to continue and to allow thiose who have always held power over us,to continue to hold power over us,unchallenged.....

jaybird said:

where does the tradition come from that Christians attack any writing that is not of the "official" bible books? there are many books that were removed, if you quote from one they will immediately tell you its not real scripture or its heresy. when you ask why, because a council of men say it is. almost never will you hear them say its non canon because on page 55 it says to kill your kids or sex with animals is ok.
some Christians will only use a KJV, other bible users are attacked. have the KJVers ever researched who king james was? i would not want his name on my bible.
and the traditions of Jesus in other cultures. native americans, UK/Ireland, India and others believe Jesus taught there but so many mainstreamers will attack this idea, this they do not want to hear, why? it says right there in the "official" bible He had other sheep to go to.
so many of these things make no sense to me. anyone else think on such things?

Click to expand...

It is somewhat simple, actually. When the councils first met, they weren't cherry picking books:

* The Jewish people had already rejected intertestamental apocrypha, all of it, as apocrypha

* The apocrypha say they are man's writings, the 66 books say, "The Word of the Lord"

* The apocrypha uses a different tone than the 66

* The apocrypha has doctrines that contradict the 66

Rejecting versions of the Bible other than the King James Version is a different issue, however, KJV-only and non-KJV-only Christians agree there are 66 inspired books in the canon.

Thank you.

Hi Folks..

Billiardball;

It is somewhat simple, actually. When the councils first met, they weren't cherry picking books:

Click to expand...

Yes it is VERY simple - when the council first met - the religious leaders of various factions,sects DID NOT HAVE ANY INPUT INT HE SELECTION PROCESS - NONE AT ALL !!

Constantine had NO religious agenda at all - his only concern was clearly matters of civil unrest, infighting among these hundred plus new forming religions and factions..He ORDERED them to come together - FORCED them to cooperate - Constantine,basically,ordered the various and seperate "christian sects", and MADE THEM assemble all their sacred texts that their faith(s) were built upon...He then had his own scribes and scholars assemble a unified doctrine from all the texts so presented - a total of 2231 manuscripts - were wittled down to make a complimentary four book narrative - and thus your modern bible canon was MANUFACTURED TO ORDER ..

Those present - although heads of the various and often vastly different sects - were by no means the equal of the Roman Emporer, neither in power, status or even intelligence...He fully dominated them, it is clear..One early church founder, Sabinius Bishop of Hereclea,was himself in attendance at the famous meeting, and he wrote down the details for the world to see..He said the following of the Nicea meeting..

"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"
(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

See clearly,the leaders of these sects,had no actual input in the formation of the "catholic religion"..They understood nothing of what was occurring, and were merely in attendance with their documents as ordered by the emporer..THEY did not even decide that which was to be included or discarded as doctrine - they had NO SAY WHATSOEVER in what was to putinto their "bible" - that task was given to that man mentioned above - Eusibius, an aide of Constantine..His instructions were thus :

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

Click to expand...

Understand now..?..Constantine - sick of civil war among his subjects - ORDERS them to "play nicely" - and gives them NO CHOICE in what was to happen...HIS SCHOLARS decided "christian doctrine" and that is undeniable..