Deuterocanonical books.

[Targaryen]

The Apocrypha from the Old Testament is rejected by a large number of groups within Christianity and some only think they are valuable as lessons and not a way of determining doctrine or dogma.

The Gnostic Gospels and to and extent the Ethopian Canon of the New Testament isn't as widely talked about:

My questions for debate are:


1. For "protestants" have you read or studied the Apocrypha, and if so, do you think it's a valuable tool?

2. For all others, have you read any of the Gnotic Texts or the Ethopian canon books? If so, do they have merit in this day and age? If some don't what do we reject. And if we reject some but not all, should there be an Apocrypha for the New Testament like there is for the Old Testament?

 

[branchofthevine]

1. I've read a number of books in the Apocrypha and have learned from them. What really makes me feel like there is something to explore in these books is the lists of the early canon -> Ancient Canon Lists which this site does a great job of providing primary sources. Early on the lines between accepted canon and non-accepted books were blurred to an extent, so why not read some of these books that the early church did accept.

Not that I'm willing to make them canon, but I think there is worth and value in reading them.

2. I Don't think I've read the gnostic gospels, and I've only encountered one Ethiopian canon books, it was interesting, but I wouldn't include it in the canon, and I wouldn't place value on the gnostic books since gnosticism is an old heresy

 

[squint]

The Apocrypha from the Old Testament is rejected by a large number of groups within Christianity and some only think they are valuable as lessons and not a way of determining doctrine or dogma.

The Gnostic Gospels and to and extent the Ethopian Canon of the New Testament isn't as widely talked about:

My questions for debate are:


1. For "protestants" have you read or studied the Apocrypha, and if so, do you think it's a valuable tool?

2. For all others, have you read any of the Gnotic Texts or the Ethopian canon books? If so, do they have merit in this day and age? If some don't what do we reject. And if we reject some but not all, should there be an Apocrypha for the New Testament like there is for the Old Testament?

Not sure it's allowed for discussions here.

Most of the texts were excluded for good cause. That doesn't mean there are not a few spiritual gems to pick up in the rubble.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Not sure it's allowed for discussions here.

Most of the texts were excluded for good cause. That doesn't mean there are not a few spiritual gems to pick up in the rubble.

I take it you are speaking of the Gnostic texts and not those included in various Canons

 

[Targaryen]

I'm speaking of both Gnostic texts as well as other canoncial works...for a baseline, let's use the KJV model 66 books for the Bible as what would be "canon" and classify other books as deutrocanonical or gnostic in origin.

 

[Gnarwhal]

The Apocrypha from the Old Testament is rejected by a large number of groups within Christianity and some only think they are valuable as lessons and not a way of determining doctrine or dogma.

The Gnostic Gospels and to and extent the Ethopian Canon of the New Testament isn't as widely talked about:

My questions for debate are:


1. For "protestants" have you read or studied the Apocrypha, and if so, do you think it's a valuable tool?

2. For all others, have you read any of the Gnotic Texts or the Ethopian canon books? If so, do they have merit in this day and age? If some don't what do we reject. And if we reject some but not all, should there be an Apocrypha for the New Testament like there is for the Old Testament?

I actually have a copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible with contains the Deuterocanon. I enjoy it very much, although to be fair I haven't read any bible in quite some time, but when I did I enjoyed skimming through some of the various Deuterocanonical books like Tobit, Judith and others. I think at the very least, there are lessons, morals and ethics that can be drawn from the examples in the Deuterocanonical accounts. Even if someone doesn't wish to hold them in the same regard as the other 66 books, they're still a worthwhile read. They key is make a conscious decision to distinguish between all the different forms of literature that may be used in those books, just like the rest of the bible.

I do not, however, believe that books like Enoch or the Gospel of Thomas should be included in the canon. I think the former is a good example of how wrong things can go for someone spiritually when they take it literally.

There's a user here (she fades in and out, hopefully she's gone for good but nobody can say for sure) who tries to evangelize from the Book of Enoch regularly. In fact, just mentioning the name of the book might bring her out of the wood work. It's disturbing at best because she indicates that she holds it in higher esteem than any other part of the scriptures.

I understand the policy here acknowledges Enoch because one of the churches considered orthodox validates it, but I question the logic behind that personally.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'm speaking of both Gnostic texts as well as other canoncial works...for a baseline, let's use the KJV model 66 books for the Bible as what would be "canon" and classify other books as deutrocanonical or gnostic in origin.

Gotcha. I was wondering what rule this would be breaking?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

subscribe

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I actually have a copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible with contains the Deuterocanon. I enjoy it very much, although to be fair I haven't read any bible in quite some time, but when I did I enjoyed skimming through some of the various Deuterocanonical books like Tobit, Judith and others. I think at the very least, there are lessons, morals and ethics that can be drawn from the examples in the Deuterocanonical accounts. Even if someone doesn't wish to hold them in the same regard as the other 66 books, they're still a worthwhile read.

I do not, however, believe that books like Enoch or the Gospel of Thomas should be included in the canon.

There's a user here (she fades in and out, hopefully she's gone for good but nobody can say for sure) who tries to evangelize from the Book of Enoch regularly. In fact, just mentioning the name of the book might bring her out of the wood work. It's disturbing at best because she indicates that she holds it in higher esteem than any other part of the scriptures.

I understand the policy here acknowledges Enoch because one of the churches considered orthodox validates it, but I question the logic behind that personally.

I also don't accept that book as Canon. But I've also not met any who do (with the sole exception of that one user) who comes up with such odd theology from it.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I also don't accept that book as Canon. But I've also not met any who do (with the sole exception of that one user) who comes up with such odd theology from it.

Neither have I, with the exception of my ex-wife's mother who was equally as strange as that user, if not more so. Oh man the juicy stories I could tell...

 

[football5680]

#2-I have read some but they have very little substance within them and contradict what the teachings of Christianity have been for 2000 years. The Gnostic gospels have been rejected by the majority of Christians unlike the so called "Apocrypha" which has been accepted by the majority of Christians throughout history and still to this day as canonical. Certain early gospels may contain some truth but on the whole we cannot accept them. An early writing may contain truth that is backed up by the tradition that was passed on within the Church but we cannot say just because they got one thing correct it means everything else within it is correct.

 

[Targaryen]

Gotcha. I was wondering what rule this would be breaking?

I'm not sure if discussion on this is a rule break in GT or not. If it is, my apologies.

But I was just curious as to if these books could be read, whith a large degree of salt taken in reference to for instance Gnostic texts but they could help with a better shaping of modern faith.

I'm just curious to see opinions and what comes forth from the debate. I'm not here to dismiss the canonical Scriptures at all.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'm not sure if discussion on this is a rule break in GT or not. If it is, my apologies.

But I was just curious as to if these books could be read, whith a large degree of salt taken in reference to for instance Gnostic texts but they could help with a better shaping of modern faith.

I'm just curious to see opinions and what comes forth from the debate. I'm not here to dismiss the canonical Scriptures at all.

I'm unaware of any rule it would be breaking. Squint seemed to think it might be and I was wondering why?

 

[Nanopants]

The "gnostic" label infers that they are considered heretical by orthodox Christianity. Unless you want to have these heresies pointed out, I'm not sure this is the right forum for it.

 

[single eye]

Most people feel that second quessing those who selected the books of the bible to be way beyond their capabilities. It only makes sense that adding in all these other possible writings is a non starter. We have been brainwashed to reject the gnostic writings as heretical and avoid them to prevent being led astray into evil. This is all so tedious and irrelevant due to the fact that only the saints wrote scripture according to the writer of Jude 3. There are only 2 basic context writings possible, genesis or the apocryphon of John. They cannot both be true and I am getting a great deal of resistance to the idea of comparing them rationally. Once a person decides that the AOJ is true and genesis is not it is clearly a dramatic game changer. The world does not seem ready for this kind of radical faith, but here it comes, ready or not.

 

[Nanopants]

I for one don't think there's a contradiction. Why not start a thread on that subject which highlights whatever inconsistencies you think there are and get some alternative p.o.v.'s?

Edit: nvm, I thought you were referring to contradictions which you thought were present within the canon of scripture. I've never read the Apocryphon of John.

 

[Targaryen]

Most people feel that second quessing those who selected the books of the bible to be way beyond their capabilities. It only makes sense that adding in all these other possible writings is a non starter. We have been brainwashed to reject the gnostic writings as heretical and avoid them to prevent being led astray into evil. This is all so tedious and irrelevant due to the fact that only the saints wrote scripture according to the writer of Jude 3. There are only 2 basic context writings possible, genesis or the apocryphon of John. They cannot both be true and I am getting a great deal of resistance to the idea of comparing them rationally. Once a person decides that the AOJ is true and genesis is not it is clearly a dramatic game changer. The world does not seem ready for this kind of radical faith, but here it comes, ready or not.

To be clear, this is not second guessing the books of the Bible as they currently are. This is to debate if a reexamination of these out of canon texts is worth a look at or not. This is not meant to debase current Scripture.

 

[Nanopants]

Just from thumbing through the "gnosticism" section on wikipedia, I can tell a lot of this stuff really is gnosticism. An open season on the reexamination of gnostic texts sounds like a bad idea.

The one exception that I can think of is from a scholarly approach- in my early christian history course it was pointed out to me that in the debate on the supposed source of the canonical Gospels, one book has been considered to be some kind of intermediate text by some analysts. Academia at least thinks there's a reason to examine it.

 

[Targaryen]

why would it be a bad idea. Gnosticism is dead and should stay dead, but there could be tools in there that is read critically, tossing aside the gnosticism and just like we critically read Scriptures nowadays. Nor should we say this is to replace Scripture either, but more insight on the early church could be a good thing, if taken with those dashes of salt.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Most people feel that second quessing those who selected the books of the bible to be way beyond their capabilities. It only makes sense that adding in all these other possible writings is a non starter. We have been brainwashed to reject the gnostic writings as heretical and avoid them to prevent being led astray into evil. This is all so tedious and irrelevant due to the fact that only the saints wrote scripture according to the writer of Jude 3. There are only 2 basic context writings possible, genesis or the apocryphon of John. They cannot both be true and I am getting a great deal of resistance to the idea of comparing them rationally. Once a person decides that the AOJ is true and genesis is not it is clearly a dramatic game changer. The world does not seem ready for this kind of radical faith, but here it comes, ready or not.

It's kind of hard to decipher what your thesis is, but it seems like you're overlooking the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church have (and have had) more books than the Protestant canon. It was the reformers who removed the Deuterocanon.

It's not a matter of making sweeping declarations that say "since this deuterocanon is authentic, so these other books deemed gnostic must be legit too". No, what's valid is valid and what's not is not.