Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeA. I believe Albert Einstein said: "Curiosity is more important than intelligence." You apparently agree; I applaud your objective intellectual curiosity which brings to mind "Doubting Thomas" in the Upper Room following Christ's crucifixion at Golgotha Hill. We're kindred spirits to the extent that we're both seekers of absolute truth. With respect to your question, which relates to Canonicity, I must first ask you to clarify which "gospels 'not' included in the bible" are referenced.
A. Can't speak for all atheists, but i have not chosen to 'ignore the possibility that God exists' nor have i lacked 'curiosity' about his existence.- Indeed, the fact that i chose to read Theology as my Degree is evidence enough that i have considered the possibility of his existence and been curious enough to study the topic and look for answers. - ...[text shortened]... ls 'not' included in the bible any less important, bearing in mind it was man who excluded them?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFootnote:
With respect to your question, which relates to Canonicity, I must first ask you to clarify which "gospels 'not' included in the bible" are referenced.
From memory are possibly 20 or so noncanonical gospels, but the Gospel of Mary comes to mind.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Footnote:
From memory are possibly 20 or so noncanonical gospels, but the Gospel of Mary comes to mind.
2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom Thursday November 20, 2014
Canonicity: Homologoumena, Antilegomena, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Lesson # 14
In the third century, Origen categorized Christian writings in order to identify for the church which books were recognized by the church as canonical and which ones were not. He established three categories: (a) anantireta (“unobjectionable” ) or homologoumena (“acknowledged” ), which were in general use in the church, (2) amphiballomena (“included/contested” ), which were contested, and (3) psethde (“false” ), which included books that were rejected as falsifications and therefore the products of heretics.
Then along came Eusebius of Caesarea who in the fourth century reworked these categories formulated by Origin. He categorized Christian writings as follows: (1) homologoumena (“acknowledged” ), (2) antilegomena (“disputed” ): (a) gnorima (“acquainted with” ), for those most Christians acknowledged, (b) notha (“illegitimate” ), for those regarded as inauthentic, and (3) apocrypha (“hidden” ), which were recognized as spurious.
Today, these categories of writings are seen by scholars as being in four categories: (1) Homologoumena, books accepted by virtually everyone as canonical; (2) Antilegomena, books disputed by some; (3) Pseudepigrapha, books rejected by virtually everyone as unauthentic; and (4) Apocrypha, books accepted by some as canonical or semi-canonical.
The term homologoumena identifies those Christian writings that were undisputed during the first three centuries of church history and ultimately accepted into the New Testament canon. (Page 1)
For Eusebius, the homologoumena, the writings acknowledged as Scripture by the church of his day, included the four Gospels, Acts, fourteen letters of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John and perhaps Revelation.
The term antilegomena was used to identify those writings whose inspiration and canonicity were disputed (แผντιλεγฯμενος, “spoken against” ), as opposed to those that were accepted by all (i.e., homologoumena).
In the New Testament, these books were Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. The term “pseudepigrapha” was used to identify those writings which were not recognized by the church as being inspired by God and thus not included in the New Testament canon.
This term is sometimes used synonymously with New Testament Apocrypha.
During the first few centuries, numerous books of a fanciful and heretical nature arose that are neither genuine nor valuable as a whole. Eusebius of Caesarea called these “totally absurd and impious.” Virtually no orthodox Father, canon, or council considered these books to be canonical and, so far as the church is concerned, they are primarily of historical value, indicating the heretical teaching of gnostic, docetic, and ascetic groups, as well as the exaggerated fancy of religious lore in the early church. At best, these books were revered by some of the cults and referred to by some of the orthodox Fathers, but they were never considered canonical by the mainstream of Christianity.
The following writings fell under the category “pseudepigrapha”: (1) The Gospel of Thomas (early second century) (2) The Gospel of the Ebionites (second century) (3) The Gospel of Peter (second century). (4) Protevangelium of James (late second century). (5) The Gospel of the Hebrews (second century). (5) The Gospel of the Egyptians (second century). (6) The Gospel of the Nazaraeans (early second century). (7) The Gospel of Philip (second century). (7) The Book of Thomas the Athlete (8) The Gospel According to Mathias (9) The Gospel of Judas (late second century). (10) Epistle of an Apostle (Epistula Apostolorum) (second century). (11) The Apocryphon of John (second century). (12) The Gospel of Truth (second century).
1 Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible (Rev. and expanded., p. 301). Chicago: Moody Press. (Page 2)๏ฃ
In relation to the New Testament canon, the term “Apocrypha” was used to identify those books which were not recognized by the church as canonical and like the Pseudepigrapha, were used by the heretics and were sometimes quoted by orthodox writers.
The following writings fall under this category: (1) Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (c. a.d. 70–79). (2) Epistle to the Corinthians (c. a.d. 96). (3) Ancient Homily, or the so-called Second Epistle of Clement (c. a.d. 120–40). (4) Shepherd of Hermas (c. a.d. 115–40). (5) Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve (c. a.d. 100–120). (6) Apocalypse of Peter (c. 150). (7) The Acts of Paul and Thecla (170). (8) Epistle to the Laodiceans (fourth century?). (9) The Gospel According to the Hebrews (a.d. 65–100). (10) Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (c. a.d. 108). (11) The Seven Epistles of Ignatius (c. a.d. 110).
In general, these books have no positive theological value, and almost no historical value, except as they reflect the religious consciousness of the church during early centuries. Their value may be summarized as follows: (Page 3 of 4)
http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/notes/canonicity/canonicity_00012.pdf
Ghost of a Duke, I realize the format of this reply is unprecedented in the thread; however, I'm hopeful that you'll appreciate Pastor Wenstrom's attention to meaningful detail and definitive scholarship on the academic subject of Biblical Canonicity. There are a few more related website links which I'll send to you via Personal Message. Still searching for the "Gospel of Mary". Thanks for your objective interest. -Bob
Q. What other questions do you have regarding problematical aspects of God's Word?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyA: I was a Christian for well more than 20 adult years so I certainly haven't "chosen to ignore the possibility" that the Christian version of God exists.
Q. What if you've chosen to ignore the possibility that God does exist and your determination was totally incorrect?
Q: Have any of you learned any good spiritual lessons from video games? What with the story lines being this detailed now, some really make one stop and think.
Originally posted by FMFYou keyboard must have gone bad, because your comment at the end of your Q makes no sense. ๐
A: I was a Christian for well more than 20 adult years so I certainly haven't "chosen to ignore the possibility" that the Christian version of God exists.
Q: Have any of you learned any good spiritual lessons from video games? What with the story lines being this detailed now, some really make one stop and think.
07 May 15
Originally posted by FMFA. Of course and to the extent that his point of view on spirituality topics differs from mine.
Q: This thread used to be BigDoggProblem's favorite. Now it's his least favorite. He's thinking you had a lot to do with that. Might he have a point?
Q. On the basis of what logical empirical or rational statement does God not exist?