Gospel and Apocalypse of St Peter

Why do our christian posters think that this source was not incorporated into the bible?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why do our christian posters think that this source was not incorporated into the bible?

the vatican is a little bitchy?

probably they excused themselves as unable to verify the authenticity or peter said some things that would contradict some of the existing dogma an rather than trouble themselves with adjusting the faith, they covered it up.


peter was supposed to be the first pope. imagine if he said in some of his gospels that no, the word of the pope is not the word of jesus and no, the pope doesn't have the authority to do whatever the hell he wants. that would have scrwd their bizzniz just a tad.


ofc, the above are unfounded hypothesis, having not read them myself. would love a link to a summary of them.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why do our christian posters think that this source was not incorporated into the bible?

What source, could you post the link?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why do our christian posters think that this source was not incorporated into the bible?

For the Gospel of Peter, it was probably excluded from the canon because it appears to support a docetic Christology. I'm not sure why the Apocalypse of Peter was eventually excluded, although some early church figures did consider it canonical.

Originally posted by shahenshah
What source, could you post the link?

Translations, obviously:

http://tinyurl.com/3w4c6kg
http://www.21stcenturysaints.com/resources/APOC_PETER.pdf

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the vatican is a little bitchy?

Its my understanding that the Bible was put together before the Vatican.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its my understanding that the Bible was put together before the Vatican.

yes, technically true. i meant the grand poobahs of christianity.

though, the vatican is choosing right now to ignore newfound texts. they are archived but no new edition of the bible is coming out

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, technically true. i meant the grand poobahs of christianity.

But why call them 'the Vatican'?

though, the vatican is choosing right now to ignore newfound texts. they are archived but no new edition of the bible is coming out
The same applies to just about every Christian or Christian organisation. There are of course exceptions, such as the Muslims and Mormons.
If anything, the Vatican, or more correctly, the Roman Catholic Church, are more liberal in that respect than most denominations in that they often include the Apocryphal texts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why call them 'the Vatican'?

[b]though, the vatican is choosing right now to ignore newfound texts. they are archived but no new edition of the bible is coming out
The same applies to just about every Christian or Christian organisation. There are of course exceptions, such as the Muslims and Mormons.
If anything, the Vatican, or more correct ...[text shortened]... beral in that respect than most denominations in that they often include the Apocryphal texts.[/b]

Aren't the ones that make the decisions in "the Vatican"?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why do our christian posters think that this source was not incorporated into the bible?

I would say its likely that the actual authorship seems to be in question, as there were no other copies to authenticate them. Also the writings were incomplete manuscripts; the ravages of time destroyed great parts of them.


I went to the links and read them and found them quite interesting, thanks for posting this.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, technically true. i meant the grand poobahs of christianity.

though, the vatican is choosing right now to ignore newfound texts. they are archived but no new edition of the bible is coming out

I think this highlights the differences between Catholic and Protestant views on canonicty. For a Protestant, I suppose one of the requirement for a canonical text is that it have some kind of historicity -- that is, that the text was written close to the time of the events. If it turned out that this apocryphal work were composed close to to the time of the apostles, it may have greater canonity. In contrast, works like Maccabees are rejected because they seem to have been older and therefore are not accepted as part Old Testament canon.

For Catholics, however, the canon of Scripture is not so much about historicity (though this can be important); Scripture is primarily ecclesiastical. Scripture is the property of the church. What counts for the canon is that the text was used by the Church, that it had currency in the majority of churches. Even if a work were discovered to have been written at the time of the apostles, even if it were totally orthodox, Catholics could not regard it as canonical because it ceased to be used by the Church (one obvious example would be the Didache.)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Aren't the ones that make the decisions in "the Vatican"?

I suspect most bishops live outside the Vatican.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I suspect most bishops live outside the Vatican.

What does the location of the home of most bishops have to do
with anything. You don't seem to get my point. I may be wrong,
since I am not Roman Catholic, but I thought the Vatican was the
location were the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church met to
decide on big issues reguarding the church. And the authoritative
decisons come out of the councils of the Vatican. I have heard of
news reported from the Vatican. Please correct me, if I am wrong,
Then inform us all of the truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What does the location of the home of most bishops have to do
with anything. You don't seem to get my point. I may be wrong,
since I am not Roman Catholic, but I thought the Vatican was the
location were the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church met to
decide on big issues reguarding the church. And the authoritative
decisons come out of the councils ...[text shortened]... reported from the Vatican. Please correct me, if I am wrong,
Then inform us all of the truth.

Well, no, location does not matter. It so happens that the last two ecumenical councils (meetings of bishops to discuss and possibly define doctrine) were in the Vatican. These ecumenical councils however have occurred all over Europe, with or without the presence of the Pope.

The subject of canonization is too extensive to handle in one or two short Internet posts.

But men of God did not bestow authority on biblical books. They DISCOVERED that authority.

The canon is not an authoritative list of books. It is a list of authoritative books.

Inspiration was not bestowed on biblical books. Inspiration was confirmed concerning the inspired books. Authority was not assigned. It was discovered, confirmed.

Not all spiritual writings, and there were probably thousands, were discovered to be canonical.