Yuku free message boards

Raphjd ~

(We're pretty far away from the Quran now, but...)

When you were asked the question "Weren't the Gospels you have in the Bible today were chosen by committee?" you answered "YES, at the First Ecumenical {sp?} Council in 325 AD."

That is not true. Someone has been lying to you. What do you propose as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen by committee in 325?

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

Raphjd ~

R: "I think those 4 were already considered important so there wasn't much debate on them. I do believe that things were edited in those 4 at this time."

Why? What evidence do you have that the question of the canon even came up at Nicea? And, not only why, but /how/? I am wondering, for instance, how the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John were edited in 325, since there's a papyrus copy (Papyrus 75) of those two books in existence, produced in the late 100's or early 200's. Now, are there differences between the text of Papyrus 75 and, say, Codex Vaticanus, which was produced in about 325? Yes. Do these differences result in major differences in the overall message? No.

R: "Two example of texts they rejected from the bible include the Nag Hammadi collection and the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Saying that they "rejected from the Bible" the Nag Hammadi collection is like saying that they rejected from the Bible the works of Aeschylus. They were never in the Bible. The Nag Hammadi compositions were written by Gnostics. Saying that the Christian leaders rejected the Nag Hammadi collection is exactly right. Books were not assumed to be authoritative for the church simply by virtue of their existence. But to imply that Christians wrote and revered the Nag Hammadi collection is nonsense. It's like saying that the founders of the United States rejected the Communist Manifesto from the Constitution.

R: "Why weren't these included in the bible?"

The Nag Hammadi books? Because they were written by false teachers, of course.

R: "They were written at the same time as the books in the bible"

Not true. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the earliest, dating to about 140. For the others, well, you yourself mentioned that there is plenty of information on them, and if that online material is objective and well-researched, you can find out the not-in-the-apostolic-era dates yourself.

R: "and seem to hold just as much weight?"

Only in the minds of their authors! The apostolic church consistently rejected the Gnostics' teachings.

R: "No, the church and Constantine did want them in there because they conflicted with their ideas about christianity; ie the "Holy Trinity"."

I'm not sure what pseudo-history you've been reading, but in the real world, Constantine wasn't all that concerned about the Gnostics. The main concern at the Council of Nicea was Arianism, not Gnosticism.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock