Gospel and Apocalypse of St Peter

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Peter says the following:

The Gospel of Peter, although not used in today's teachings in the churches, was known and used as Scripture in many parts of the Christian Churches during the second century.

So are you saying that if one church did not use it that was enough to
throw it out?

So are you saying that if one church did not use it that was enough to
throw it out?

No. But the fact that it was not universal (in fact, is not endorsed by any Church Father) and was not used subsequently is enough to exclude it from the canon.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
Ok. I just want to point out that there are difficulties in discovering the exact biblical canon. It is not as easy as you initially implied.
====================================

I didn't mean that it was easy. Neither is it as easy as some fellow saying he doesn't like a certain book so it should not be i ...[text shortened]...
I don't think it was as much a matter of personal preference as you want to imply.[/b]

I don't think it was as much a matter of personal preference as you want to imply.

I didn't wish to imply that at all. It's just that you think that the canon is easily discoverable. God ordained it and so anyone should be able to work it out. But as you yourself acknowledge, the process of deciding the canon was very complex (I could be wrong but I don't think that the Catholic Church officially codified the canon until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.) Even then, there remain points of differences between Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants. Now some most certainly can be dismissed as inauthentic (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses certain texts rejected by all other Christians and which are obviously much later writings.) But some like Maccabees are much more difficult and cannot be so easily rejected.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b] I don't think it was as much a matter of personal preference as you want to imply.

I didn't wish to imply that at all. It's just that you think that the canon is easily discoverable. God ordained it and so anyone should be able to work it out. But as you yourself acknowledge, the process of deciding the canon was very complex (I could be wrong b writings.) But some like Maccabees are much more difficult and cannot be so easily rejected.[/b]

===================================
I didn't wish to imply that at all. It's just that you think that the canon is easily discoverable.
==================================

I don't think the long amount of TIME during which men of God settled on the canon suggests that EASE was done in this discernment.

The test of time observed with some books of the Bible do not suggest this discerning of the QUALITY of the writing was easily detected.

============================
God ordained it and so anyone should be able to work it out.
==============================

I don't think I said "anyone". I am thankful that the process is completed. The burden did not fall on you and I to discern the gold from the dross.

Our burdens are other things. To decide which books do not come up to the standard of "the word of God" for the rule of the canon, fell on other people of God. To some degree we have to trust that God directed this process.

If God did not then we must conclude He's not too bright or competent. He communicated with mankind. He should be able enough also to guide His people to recognize His word from the plethora of spiritual and religious writings which came as a flood in addition.


====================================
But as you yourself acknowledge, the process of deciding the canon was very complex (I could be wrong but I don't think that the Catholic Church officially codified the canon until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.)
========================================

The Catholic Church didn't even want people to READ the Bible for about 1,000 years. They locked it up so that only the heirarchy of clerics had access to it.

This 1,000 years or so of the Bible being excluded from being accessed by the common man is called The Dark Ages. Now this should raise some concerns about RCC's degree of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But I will review the matters. I will review your menioning of Trent.

===================================
Even then, there remain points of differences between Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants. Now some most certainly can be dismissed as inauthentic (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses certain texts rejected by all other Christians and which are obviously much later writings.) But some like Maccabees are much more difficult and cannot be so easily rejected.
=========================================

A problem is that just because there is some good and interesting and even "spiritual" stuff written in other writings, does not make them rise to the level of canonicity.

I don't spend a lot of time in Enoch or Macabees. I am sure there is some interesting things there.

I believe that the New Testament canon was actually completed when the last book was written. Within the New Testament itself, we can read of the process of selecting and reading the prophetic and apostolic writings. The Apostolic Father may be cited as referring to all of the New Testament books within around a century of the time of their having been written. Individuals, translations and lists of revered Scriptures as canons reveal that all but a very few books were generally recognized as canonical before the end of the second century AD.

All doubts concerning these few argued over books were erased during the next two centuries. Then there was final and recognition of all 27 of the New Testament books by the Christian brotherhood universally.

I cannot say this process was all so easy.

Which books are you concerned are unfairly excluded?
Which books do you consider are unfairly included?

I think specifics would help me focus rather than a general "everybody didn't agree".