• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Not?

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
I know this question has been asked over and over... so sorry...

Anyway, I was faced with many contradictions when I started looking into Gnosticism from Christianity.

One of the things that interested me most about Gnosticism was the fact that there was more to learn and understand about God. Why were only some books chosen for the gospel? Only a select four went into the Bible, when there were about thirty other gospels that all said something abuot the nature of Yehsua and explained God in further detail.

I think Becky will remember a mistake I made once in asking a few LDS members, "If there was more information written about God and Yeshua, wouldn't you want to know it?" In that respect, the LDS church and Gnostics are the same, that we read beyond the original canon from the Bible.

I'm specifically asking christians who dont follow the BoM, or extra-canonical texts why they dont feel like there is anything to gain from other texts written about Yeshua. It's not a loaded question, I'm just curious is all.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Why were only some books chosen for the gospel? Only a select four went into the Bible, when there were about thirty other gospels that all said something abuot the nature of Yehsua and explained God in further detail.
Because only those four gosples meshed properly with Christianity...

I'm specifically asking christians who dont follow the BoM, or extra-canonical texts why they dont feel like there is anything to gain from other texts written about Yeshua.
There may be moral ideas to gain fron extra-cannonical texts... but anything that adds to or takes away from the gosples of ancient Christianity I would disregard.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
I enjoy reading any religious writings, I simply do not hold them as authoritative as the 66 books of the Bible. The older ones were rejected, for specifically listed reasons, as they had to meet a certain criteria to be considered God's Word. Some had fanciful, historicaly innacurate stories, etc. and were rejected. Most even rejected the apocrapha accepted by the Catholic Church. The best way to learn about it is to study how and why the books were accepted or rejected. The Bible is 66 books that blend perfectly together, and I believe it is God's revelation to us, and that it is a closed canon, therefore later writings I reject not only because I believe God's revelation of what we needed to be revealed for this life is done, but also because many other 'scriptures' twist and even change and add to the Bible, which for various reasons I do not accept as authoritative. It comes down to people bringing a different Christ or different gospel than what we first received, that we are to reject it. The Bible plainly tells the plan of salvation and how to live our lives, and what we should hope for and expect in the future. For me, having studied it for years and years, it is complete and whole and wonderful, its all I need. But that is just me, and to each their own. Kinda quick answer, but just an answer.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mister Emu said:
Because only those four gosples meshed properly with Christianity...
but who had the authority to make that decision? Christianity had 30 gospels, and you're going to tell me that only four summed up the entirety of the movement?


There may be moral ideas to gain fron extra-cannonical texts... but anything that adds to or takes away from the gosples of ancient Christianity I would disregard.
Well, speaking of texts like Thomas, Mary, and Judas, they are all ancient and have to do with yeshua's teaching.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
joeboonda said:
I enjoy reading any religious writings, I simply do not hold them as authoritative as the 66 books of the Bible. The older ones were rejected, for specifically listed reasons, as they had to meet a certain criteria to be considered God's Word.
but who had the authority to decide what God's word really was?

Some had fanciful, historicaly innacurate stories, etc. and were rejected.
you're telling me that the Bible itself doesnt have fanciful stories? *raises an eyebrow*

Most even rejected the apocrapha accepted by the Catholic Church. The best way to learn about it is to study how and why the books were accepted or rejected. The Bible is 66 books that blend perfectly together, and I believe it is God's revelation to us, and that it is a closed canon, therefore later writings I reject not only because I believe God's revelation of what we needed to be revealed for this life is done, but also because many other 'scriptures' twist and even change and add to the Bible, which for various reasons I do not accept as authoritative.
but there are many, many contradictions just within the four gospels in teh Bible. Why should more contradiction be absurd?

It comes down to people bringing a different Christ or different gospel than what we first received, that we are to reject it.
Yeshua never made a choice on what should be recieved. He died first. Why do you trust authorities that are not your savior?
 

Karl R

Active Member
Buttons* said:
One of the things that interested me most about Gnosticism was the fact that there was more to learn and understand about God.
...
"If there was more information written about God and Yeshua, wouldn't you want to know it?"
I might get around to reading the gnostic gospels. I certainly wouldn't avoid reading them. They just aren't a high priority.

Currently I'm more interested in looking into more diverse religions. I think I can also learn more about god by investigating them. Most recently I've been looking at buddhism. I might look at wicca or hinduism next.

I'm sure I'll read at least some of the gnostic works eventually. It's just not where I think I'll learn the most right now.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Karl R said:
I might get around to reading the gnostic gospels. I certainly wouldn't avoid reading them. They just aren't a high priority.

Currently I'm more interested in looking into more diverse religions. I think I can also learn more about god by investigating them. Most recently I've been looking at buddhism. I might look at wicca or hinduism next.

I'm sure I'll read at least some of the gnostic works eventually. It's just not where I think I'll learn the most right now.
cool :D
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Buttercup said:
Which specific non canonical texts are you referring to? I don't want to assume.
well, the only one's I'm really discussing are the Nag Hammadi Library, and that Gospel of Judas thingie. Anything written about God in the time of Yeshua.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
Let me do some research because it has been awhile since I have looked into some of those writings as I had the same questions myself years ago.

I don't want to relay answers that aren't accurate from my memory....:)
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Buttercup said:
Let me do some research because it has been awhile since I have looked into some of those writings as I had the same questions myself years ago.

I don't want to relay answers that aren't accurate from my memory....:)
its just fine, i'm quite patient :D
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Buttons* said:
you're telling me that the Bible itself doesnt have fanciful stories? *raises an eyebrow*

The apocryphal books' fanciful stories make the ones in the Bible seem almost dreary and commonplace sometimes. :)

Yeshua never made a choice on what should be recieved. He died first. Why do you trust authorities that are not your savior?

I the Gospels, it does appear that Jesus appointed Peter to take on authority after His death. You might argue that the Twelve in concert also had the authority. It's not like there's zero evidence for this in Jesus' sayings. It's just a bit thinner than ideal.

That's why you hear Christians of various sorts discussing "apostolic authority."

And it's not like other religions havn't got the same problem. The big split in Islam started over its debate about who was to lead the nascent faith when Muhammad passed.

Even if you write it down, people still find a way to argue with it, even in the silliest ways. It does lessen the effect greatly, but it doesn't go away.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Booko said:
The apocryphal books' fanciful stories make the ones in the Bible seem almost dreary and commonplace sometimes. :)
so true

I the Gospels, it does appear that Jesus appointed Peter to take on authority after His death. You might argue that the Twelve in concert also had the authority. It's not like there's zero evidence for this in Jesus' sayings. It's just a bit thinner than ideal.

That's why you hear Christians of various sorts discussing "apostolic authority."

And it's not like other religions havn't got the same problem. The big split in Islam started over its debate about who was to lead the nascent faith when Muhammad passed.

Even if you write it down, people still find a way to argue with it, even in the silliest ways. It does lessen the effect greatly, but it doesn't go away.

yeah, i know, but I'd still like to hear it from Christians why one authority can determine an entire doctrine, out of four gospels and some letters from a man who never met Yeshua... but that is more valid than Judas, Thomas, and Mary....?
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
Some had fanciful, historicaly innacurate stories, etc. and were rejected.

The bible isn't a history textbook, because the earth is not under 10,000 years old buddy.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
AlanGurvey said:
The bible isn't a history textbook, because the earth is not under 10,000 years old buddy.
excuse yourself, there's no place for rude tones in my thread.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
but who had the authority to make that decision?
The Christ's Church.

Christianity had 30 gospels, and you're going to tell me that only four summed up the entirety of the movement?
Only four meshed in such a way as to be able to be supported by the Church of Jesus's founding.

Well, speaking of texts like Thomas, Mary, and Judas, they are all ancient and have to do with yeshua's teaching.
Well yes they are ancient... I used the wrong word sorry...

Orthodox/Original/Apostolistic...
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
yeah, i know, but I'd still like to hear it from Christians why one authority can determine an entire doctrine, out of four gospels and some letters from a man who never met Yeshua... but that is more valid than Judas, Thomas, and Mary....?
The other gospels had clear contradictions with the teachings passed down by Jesus and the apostles, thus they were rejected as being dubious of value.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mister Emu said:
The Christ's Church.
refresh my memory, which church was that?
Only four meshed in such a way as to be able to be supported by the Church of Jesus's founding.
... again, which church was that? Yeshua died before any church was established.
Orthodox/Original/Apostolistic...
I know, but someone made that decision of what was orthodox/original/apostolic, and that person was not Yeshua
 
Top