1. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    10 Apr '10 16:05
    shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91521
    10 Apr '10 22:01
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?
    I think they should. Gnosticism is one form of christianity that makes sense to me.
    (though I haven't read them in a while)
  3. Joined
    30 Aug '06
    Moves
    28651
    11 Apr '10 02:16
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?
    Yes, along with the 6th and 7th books of Moses and the book of Jasher.
  4. Joined
    14 Feb '06
    Moves
    124501
    11 Apr '10 08:37
    i read some where that they are mischievous and prone to error
  5. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Apr '10 11:07
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?
    Well, no, they do not contribute to the entirety of the NT. Gnostic literature in fact denies many tenets of the NT. Docetist writings, for example, deny the corporeality of Jesus. Some texts also promote very unhealthy spirituality. I would not recommend The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla as canonical because its staunch insistence on total celibacy. Not even strict Catholics could accept that.
  6. Standard memberyo its me
    watch the acid...
    dosen't get you!!
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    58559
    11 Apr '10 11:34
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?
    Aren't there enough books in the Bible already for you?!
  7. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    11 Apr '10 16:09
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Well, no, they do not contribute to the entirety of the NT. Gnostic literature in fact denies many tenets of the NT. Docetist writings, for example, deny the corporeality of Jesus. Some texts also promote very unhealthy spirituality. I would not recommend The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla as canonical because its staunch insistence on total celibacy. Not even strict Catholics could accept that.
    Yes, Im aware some of those writings are heretical, but surely some of them could be included, the gospel of thomas for example.
  8. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140136
    11 Apr '10 16:52
    25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

    John 21:25

    There I imagine our many other accounts.

    Manny
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    12 Apr '10 03:11
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Yes, Im aware some of those writings are heretical, but surely some of them could be included, the gospel of thomas for example.
    So if you wrote a gospel would you like it included?
  10. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    12 Apr '10 16:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    So if you wrote a gospel would you like it included?
    what do you mean by this?

    I didn't write any of the gnostic gospels.
  11. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    12 Apr '10 16:41
    I've always been a bit baffled by this issue. We all know that the bible is a collection of translations of ancient writings and that at various times various individuals have selected what to include... right? Why all the reverence then?
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    13 Apr '10 04:08
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    what do you mean by this?

    I didn't write any of the gnostic gospels.
    But you easily could do so. So if you were prone to do so, should it be included?
  13. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    13 Apr '10 16:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    But you easily could do so. So if you were prone to do so, should it be included?
    You're not making much sense.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    13 Apr '10 18:42
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    You're not making much sense.
    If you call yourself a "Christian", could you not then write your own gospel? If so, should it be included in the Bible?
  15. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    14 Apr '10 16:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    If you call yourself a "Christian", could you not then write your own gospel? If so, should it be included in the Bible?
    I dont believe my "gospel" should have the same importance as the gnostic gospels considering:

    a- I wasn't around when Jesus did his stuff.
    b- My account wouldn't be based on anything.
    c- did I mention i wasn't around milennia ago?
Back to Top