1. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    17 Aug '11 09:49
    Why do our christian posters think that this source was not incorporated into the bible?
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    17 Aug '11 10:01
    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.
  3. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    17 Aug '11 11:35
    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?
  4. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    17 Aug '11 11:41
    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.
  5. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    17 Aug '11 11:53
    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
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Aug '11 12:04
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    the vatican is a little bitchy?
    Its my understanding that the Bible was put together before the Vatican.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    17 Aug '11 14:13
    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
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Aug '11 14:28
    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.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    17 Aug '11 14:35
    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"?
  10. St. Peter's
    Joined
    06 Dec '10
    Moves
    11308
    17 Aug '11 17:32
    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.
  11. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    17 Aug '11 22:38
    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.)
  12. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    17 Aug '11 22:40
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Aren't the ones that make the decisions in "the Vatican"?
    I suspect most bishops live outside the Vatican.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    18 Aug '11 04:06
    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.
  14. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    18 Aug '11 05:16
    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.
  15. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    18 Aug '11 07:102 edits
    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.
Back to Top