While the original KJV had 80 books (in 1611) it was eventually culled down to 66 books (in 1885). So this means that for a 1000+ years people read this other stuff and thought it was the "word of god". But someone said hey wait a minute this other stuff is all bull shit and out it went. So how can a Christen today be sure that what they're reading isn't a load of bull shit? How would that confidence differ from the way in which a Christen in 1611 was so sure (yet wrong) their Bible was all correct? You ever see those bibles where what Jesus said is in red! Pfff! Jesus - sounds Greek to me! :bugeye:
What do you mean? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The KJV contained the Apocrypha for 200+ years THEN it was pitched. And regardless, if we're just talking about Christens then you still have "some" today that are not being taught the same material as they were prior to 1885.
I thought perhaps this might help clarify things ... "The various denominations of Christianity are not in complete agreement on the canon of the Christian Bible. While the books of the Old and New Testaments are agreed upon by almost all Christians, there is a set of books that are not universally accepted. In Protestant Christianity, these books are called the Apocrypha, and are rejected as non-canonical. In Roman Catholicism, the books are known as the deuterocanonical books, and are a part of scripture. Protestant scholars often refer to these books as "Inter-testamental", as they were written after the books of the Old Testament, but before the books of the New Testament. Catholics use the word "Apocrypha" to refer to what Protestants call the Pseudepigrapha." Source: Wikipedia - Books Of The Bible
Michael, have you even read the apocryphal gospels? You'll clearly see the difference in content, topic and authority between them. They compare more to some of the books you find on Christian bookstore shelves today. And nobody is arguing that they should be included in the Bible. There were very strict (and conservative for a reason) rules by which manuscripts were canonized. Here's an inteeresting website to start at: http://www.gospels.net/
Jenyar, yes that’s my problem with the whole canonization of the NT. Lets say that I was arguing that they should be included in the Bible. My argument goes like this: For approximately 1600 years the apocryphal gospels are canon and have been part of the NT (in particular the KJV) and the forces of Satan are tricking us into removing these most gospel of books. Why would god let us canonize these scriptures and then worship their content for over a thousand years if they were not his word? God is not a trickster and therefore these must truly belong in the Biblical canon. If they are to go then all books in the canon are subject and may one day be removed. We can agree that most Christens in the 1700s would like to think that their KJV Bible is the “word of god” and that by removing a single line you’d be taking something away from the word of god. If we could travel back in time and took with us a 2003 print of KJV (say back to 1611), wouldn’t you agree that the church fathers would string us up as a servants of the devil and that we were corrupting the “word of god”? Or would they listen to us reason away 10+ books of the biblical canon? We both know we’d be toast! And if not then is there a way that I could convince you that a particular part of the NT is not canon and should be removed? Even just a single line or maybe a single word? You know a famous man once did just that: The Jefferson Bible Thomas Jefferson had such animosity for the church he even removed their power from within the new governments structure.
Thomas Jefferson Quotes Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson that may shed light on why the constitution has separation of church and state. As the quintessential founding father I’d say it’s worth reading and thinking about. "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814 "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 "If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814 "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820 "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
Michael, I'm not very familiar with your constitution or with Thomas Jefferson - he was no doubt a great man, but a man nontheless. The canonization wasn't a choice by any one man, or even just one group of men. Even taking into consideration all extant texts about Jesus, it is clear that what he was teaching was a message with a goal. The apocryphal books have a lot to say about things besides that message, and are therefore considered peripheral material, and in some cases not at all consistent with Jesus' message. Some of the criteria for canonization was that the books should claim to be gospel, and come from a source that was considered authorative by the early Christians, who didn't really rely on written material in the first place, since they were convinced that Christ would return in their lifetimes. If you look at the process of how the gospels came into being, were accepted and written down, you'll see that this remained a very meticulous process. All that Jesus said and taught were carried on by his disciples, and other men who were condoned by them. We can safely assume that they made sure that the teachers were qualified, if they thought the message of any importance whatsoever. So we accept that the oral tradition was at least accurate to their satisfaction. But they had to make sure they traditions remained accurate, so when people began disagreeing about them, and other gospels - like the gnostic gospels (which said people needed a 'special secret knowledge' to be saved) emerged, and it became clear that Christ might come after they were dead, Paul and the disciples started writing letters (the epistles) to the congregations to appeal to them to keep to what they had been taught. These were meticulously copied, spread around, and read aloud at meetings - in some cases you can even see where a preacher made marks in the margins for delivering his sermon. By the way - if you ever wondered where all the stories about angels and demons etc. came from - they were part of the books that are considered canopnical by the Catholic church, and probably the cause of much teachings about demonology and hellfire, which weren't at all emphasized by the first Christians.
The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (Numbers), Deuteronomy. They correspond to the Jewish scriptures, and were probably understood more by Jews than gentiles. I guess Numbers is the only one I haven't read in entirety (Numbers were never my strong point Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) But nothing about demons and such. What's your point?
Angels - Malachim - Messengers Angels and the Nations There are 70 angels representing the 70 nations (the number of descendants of Noah listed in Gen.Ch.10). The angel of Esau, with whom Jacob wrestled (Gen.32:25-30), is identified in the Midrash as Samael, i.e. Satan. Michael was the angel who represents the Jewish people; see Daniel 10:21 and 12:1. Fallen Angels In the Jewish tradition, Satan isn't a "fallen" angel; he's an angel whose occupation is tempting men to sin, as illustrated in Ch.1 of Job. "Satan" means something like "adversary"; it's used in that generic sense in Num.22:22. Satan's proper name is Samael. He guided the serpent in the Garden of Eden to tempt Eve. The angels who fell in Enoch's time were tempted by human women, as told in Gen.6:1-4. Their leaders were Uza (or Shemchazai) and Azael; the names Uza and Azael may be related to the Azazel of Lev.Ch.16. The Midrash (end of Devarim Rabbah) says that Uza and Azael were punished by being suspended between heaven and earth. Evil Spirits Both good and evil are G-d's creations; see Isaiah 45:7. He can certainly make use of evil spirits, for example to smite the Egyptian firstborn (Ex. 11:23). The "evil spirits" in Judges 9:23 and 1 Sam.15:14 were bad states of mind (anger, depression); G-d created man to be capable of both good and evil (see Gen.6:5 and 8:20). There is a range of Jewish views about evil spirits; Maimonides apparently believed that they are subjective. Source: Torah.org See also: Judaic mythology
The Torah is also called The Five Books of Moses. "The Tanakh or Tanakh is the Hebrew language acronym for the Jewish Bible, taking its name from the initial letters of its three main sections, the Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim. The Tanach is mostly written in Hebrew; some parts are in Aramaic."
Do you know the process of how the gospels came into being? What year they were canonized? Have you ever read the Synoptic Problem? A comparison between Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 indicates that they have the exact same wording . The probability of choosing the same words in the same order is extremely low if not mathematically impossible. When the synoptic parallels are compared some startling results are noticed: Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other hand, less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only 47% of Luke is found in Mark. Kind of makes you wonder how these books came into being huh? Have you ever wondered why the name Jesus (Iesous) is used? It’s obviously Greek not Hebrew. Why did the Greek Jews make up the name Jesus and not use his real name which is Yehoshua? The reason is because Jesus adds to 888 the first whole note in harmonics (incidentally 666 is the fifth). For Gematria See: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism Which just brings me to my point - about canonization and the bible. The process of how the bible became initially canonized is shady at best. It’s not surprising that some NT books would be pitched in 1885. Still, a person in 1884 wouldn’t have dreamed any books were to be removed the following year. I’m sure some resisted the change - couldn't beleive it. As a matter fact you can purchase a KJV with all 80 books even today. As that’s the case maybe some of these other NT books should be pitched as well? What would it take for you to accept the removal of another canonized book from the Bible? Could you?
