books of the bible

[hanes]

why did christianity leave some books out of the bible? and on that who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

i just find it rather hypocritical to put some books in and some books out. it seems like they just put the books that made the religion sound all good.

The Gospel of Mary: This Gnostic Text reveals that Mary Magdalene may
have been an apostle, perhaps even a leading apostle, not a prostitute.
While some texts in the Bible seem to deny women a voice in the
Christian community, this texts helps spark the debate about the role
of women in the church.

i was just wondering why books like this werent added? a religion based on the bible should have all the points not just the ones that are fitting.

[Tilia]

The Gospel of Mary: This Gnostic Text reveals that Mary Magdalene may
have been an apostle, perhaps even a leading apostle, not a prostitute.
While some texts in the Bible seem to deny women a voice in the
Christian community, this texts helps spark the debate about the role
of women in the church.

i was just wondering why books like this werent added? a religion based on the bible should have all the points not just the ones that are fitting.

I wonder why it is Christianity that must contradict itself. Or is this a ploy to allow Christ-haters to corrupt Christianity, themselves and society?

[scorpia]

I think that was the apostle John, with 1 John debating against the gnostics that were there in his day. Most of this book of the bible is an argument about the gospel of Mary and other gnostic texts. Eg.

1 John 4: 2 "This is how you can recognise the spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Chist has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God is not from God."

It was John, one of the authors of the Bible who went against such other gospels, mostly I think because they had other claims about Jesus contrary to what he had seen, such as Jesus being a ghost or something similair.

[trencacloscas]

Why the surprise? Religion is only another synonym of hypocrisy. Since Christianity is an entirely forged religion, the gaps were filled according to the interests of the established powers.

[McCulloch]

why did christianity leave some books out of the bible? and on that who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

These are very good questions. They hit at the achilles heel of all revealed religions. There are, to my mind, two categories of revealed religion.

1. Those who believe that the supernatural source of divine wisdom is ongoing. God, for these religionists, will continue to directly communicate with humanity.
2. Those which have a closed canon. That is the divine has completed his revelation to humanity and there will be no more.

Obviously, all of those in the second group, were once a part of the first. Each point of view has its difficulties.

For those who believe in continued revelation,

• How do humans determine which communications are valid and which ones are not?
• What do you do when the newest revelations contradict the older ones?

I believe that the accumulation of revelations and the difficulties validating them pressure religious bodies into making the transition from having continued revelation into a closed canon.

But a closed canon has its own troublesome questions.

• Who and how is it decided when God stops revealing his truth to humans?
• What do you do when ancient revealed truths are not adequate to modern societal problems?

Different Christian groups fall into each of these camps. I have not seen any Christian apologist adequately answer these difficulties.

• On what basis were the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the Gospel of Thomas, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of Peter, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the First Epistle of Clement, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Mary all rejected?
• On what basis were the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of John, the Third Epistle of John and the Second Epistle of Peter all accepted?

[Tilia]

why did christianity leave some books out of the bible? and on that who picks the books that get to be in the bible?

These are very good questions. They hit at the achilles heel of all revealed religions.

So some religions are revealed? Not man-made?

[McCulloch]

So some religions are revealed? Not man-made?

By the term revealed religion, I meant those religions which make the claim to have a source of wisdom from revealed to them from a supernatural source. The difficulties I have described are part of the reason why I do not believe that any such claim is valid. Virtually all religions make some claim to be created or guided by a supernatural being and in my opinion, all of them are, in reality, man-made.

[Tilia]

So some religions are revealed? Not man-made?

By the term revealed religion, I meant those religions which make the claim to have a source of wisdom from revealed to them from a supernatural source.

Just testing!

Now what business is it of yours, or anyone's, what sources people identify as being of supernatural origin? Who am I, who are you, to tell them what to pick?

[queen annie]

I think that was the apostle John, with 1 John debating against the gnostics that were there in his day. Most of this book of the bible is an argument about the gospel of Mary and other gnostic texts.

I have more than a strong suspicion that John (as in the author of the fourth gospel) was actually Mary!

Whomever wrote the fourth gospel was in more possession of gnosis than what the other sospels' authors appear to have been.

It was John, one of the authors of the Bible who went against such other gospels, mostly I think because they had other claims about Jesus contrary to what he had seen, such as Jesus being a ghost or something similair.

I've never read anything like that in the other gospels--I don't see any reason such as that for them being omitted. At any rate, I don't think the apostle John (if he did live to be so old, the bible actually contradicts such a claim) lived long enough (even at the claimed age of death) to be involved in determining the canon.

The canon was decided by the order of the Roman Emperor of the time--Constantine. Scriptural cohesiveness was the cover for the true motive which was Imperial cohesiveness, by way of the ultimate concept of enforcer--God's holy wrath. The Roman Empire was quite the handful--even the most skilled of human regents will have trouble with such a diverse and wide-spread citizenry, especially when the diversity is in the venue of divine fealty.

For those who believe in continued revelation,

* How do humans determine which communications are valid and which ones are not?
* What do you do when the newest revelations contradict the older ones?

* By being 'berean.'
* No true divine revelation, regardless of the time in which it is revealed (whether it be 500 BC or 2005 AD), will contradict another. If 'God doesn't change' then neither do the forms of communication or the content thereof.

So some religions are revealed? Not man-made?

'True' religion--is something that must be 'pure.' Therefore it can only be revealed, on an individual basis. What we call 'religion'--the man-made sort--is nothing more than cleverly disguised superstitious politics. It is public co-dependency on a large scale.

[McCulloch]

Now what business is it of yours, or anyone's, what sources people identify as being of supernatural origin? Who am I, who are you, to tell them what to pick?

So long as they don't try to convince me that their selection is valid, I do not care. If they believe in an extra planetary revelation made through a sleeping subject in the early twentieth century, that is their right. But as soon as the claim is made that a particular tome is objectively revealed supernatural truth and that I should give it credence, then I have to evaluate the source. Then the questions have to be answered.