Deuterocanonical books.

[squint]

Thank you I get it now. You mean Gnostic by your understanding not by what others may or may not call Gnostic.

Gnostic to me means firstly, an understanding that the flesh/material world is evil or, as shown by a previous poster, that an evil god made the material world. OR that only spirit is good. Those are classic gnostic beliefs.

Notwithstanding the poor biblical scholarship demonstrated in Bel and the Dragon.

 

[Blessedj01]

Oh hi, I see you guys are still discussing fairy tales.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The ancient heretical books are interesting if just for their historical value. To understand the various Gnosticisms (Gnosticism wasn't a monolithic heresy) seeing the works they produced is incredibly important.

The Deuterocanonicals are, of course, very important because most Christians still regard them as Canon. They are, at the very least, exceptionally good to read, edifying, spiritual books that not only have important historical value (e.g. 1 Maccabees) but great godly counsel.

I would also regard the Antilegomena (disputed books that were sometimes regarded as Canon and sometimes not, which technically also includes books we now regard as Canon such as James, Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter, etc) such as 1 Clement, the Didache, etc as good and beneficial to read.

The ancient pious fictions, such as the Infancy Gospels are interesting, if only from an amusement perspective. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas discovered in the Nag Hammadi Library) contains somewhat humorous stories such as St. Joseph cutting a wooden plank too short, and the Child Jesus stretching it out to the proper length. Some of these stories, while regarded as amusing, somewhat humorous late antiquity pious fictions in Christianity, are actually retained in the Qur'an and accepted by Muslims as scriptural truth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Erose]

Gnostic to me means firstly, an understanding that the flesh/material world is evil or, as shown by a previous poster, that an evil god made the material world. OR that only spirit is good. Those are classic gnostic beliefs.

Notwithstanding the poor biblical scholarship demonstrated in Bel and the Dragon.

Well Bel and the Dragon is gnostic, and have you ever read it? If so what poor biblical scholarship do you find in this section in the Book of Daniel?

 

[Targaryen]

Well Bel and the Dragon is gnostic, and have you ever read it? If so what poor biblical scholarship do you find in this section in the Book of Daniel?

Bel and the Dragon, is not included in the text of the Book of Daniel in the traditional protestant bible but it appears as a deutrocanonical book in the Apocrypha....I'm not sure of the jump of logic between the Apocrypha and gnosticism.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well Bel and the Dragon is gnostic, and have you ever read it? If so what poor biblical scholarship do you find in this section in the Book of Daniel?

Bel and the Dragon, is not included in the text of the Book of Daniel in the traditional protestant bible but it appears as a deutrocanonical book in the Apocrypha....I'm not sure of the jump of logic between the Apocrypha and gnosticism.

Have to admit, I'm confused here, too. Not to mention I'm uncertain that Bel and the Dragon can be described as "scholarship" whether poor or good. It's a legendary story attached to a legendary story attached to an apocalypse.

 

[WisdomTree]

Have to admit, I'm confused here, too. Not to mention I'm uncertain that Bel and the Dragon can be described as "scholarship" whether poor or good. It's a legendary story attached to a legendary story attached to an apocalypse.

Legendary, legendary, apocalypse. Legandapocalypception!

 

[single eye]

squint, you are quite right that the disciples were radically unorthodox and classically gnostic. Guess who they learned it from? The people who told you that bible-orthodoxy, whatever the hell that means, would protect you from hearesy were clueless. All you have managed to shield yourself from is "the truth that sets us free".

 

[Blessedj01]

squint, you are quite right that the disciples were radically unorthodox and classically gnostic. Guess who they learned it from? The people who told you that bible-orthodoxy, whatever the hell that means, would protect you from hearesy were clueless. All you have managed to shield yourself from is "the truth that sets us free".

The disciples followed Jesus, they didn't deal with anything else but the truth. All this is just revisionist.

 

[single eye]

No, the revisionists were the people who selected the books of the bible without the authority to do so.

 

[Targaryen]

No, the revisionists were the people who selected the books of the bible without the authority to do so.

Ummm...what?

Ok then by that logic there would be no current bible at all, at least not one that is uniform. Is that what you mean? Or you suggesting we abandon what we know of as scripture?

Your comment begs for a lot of elaboration.

 

[single eye]

Then elaborate I will. I am suggesting that we reevaluate who had authority to write scripture. You call the bible uniform? Then how do you explain how hopelessly divided the christian community is? Did Jesus not say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? If ever there was an example of a divided house it is bible-base christianity. Jesus received authority to deliver the faith to the saints publicly at His baptism. He proceeded to select 12 disciples and train them day and night for over 3 years. Prior to leaving Jesus informed the 12 that they would be sent "another comforter", a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth, to complete their training. This example gave us the model for what it took to become qualified to write scripture. I have never seen evidence that anyone else but the saints were so qualified. Have you? The names of the people who selected the books of the bible are suspiciously missing. This means that we lack any credible evidence that they were qualified to construct a bible. Do you need more elaboration?

 

[Targaryen]

Then elaborate I will. I am suggesting that we reevaluate who had authority to write scripture. You call the bible uniform? Then how do you explain how hopelessly divided the christian community is? Did Jesus not say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? If ever there was an example of a divided house it is bible-base christianity. Jesus received authority to deliver the faith to the saints publicly at His baptism. He proceeded to select 12 disciples and train them day and night for over 3 years. Prior to leaving Jesus informed the 12 that they would be sent "another comforter", a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth, to complete their training. This example gave us the model for what it took to become qualified to write scripture. I have never seen evidence that anyone else but the saints were so qualified. Have you? The names of the people who selected the books of the bible are suspiciously missing. This means that we lack any credible evidence that they were qualified to construct a bible. Do you need more elaboration?

First of all, the final canonization of what we consider as the Bible was done around the period of the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD with certain books accepted by some churches notwithstanding. Generally all Christian bibles contain the 66 books that make up the KJV, the most successful and still widely used version of the English Bible ever so the comment on uniformity is your first jump in logic.

Second of all, to dispute the early church fathers is to dismiss individuals who would be considered saints in the Christian understanding for their work not only on the bible but in the church of that period.

Thirdly, if you are declaring that the Bible is irrelevant due to disagreements and man-made decisions of breaking away. Then you're not just faulty but willfully so. The decisions made by men and political entities are not from the Scriptures not being uniform but from man's own decisions to break away, for good or for ill.

Perhaps you should spend more time in study of history and biblical truths and less time jumping to conclusions.

 

[Erose]

Bel and the Dragon, is not included in the text of the Book of Daniel in the traditional protestant bible but it appears as a deutrocanonical book in the Apocrypha....I'm not sure of the jump of logic between the Apocrypha and gnosticism.

I understand that somewhere along the line Protestants removed this section among others from the Book of Daniel, but I am interested to know what issue folks have with this section in Daniel?

 

[Erose]

Have to admit, I'm confused here, too. Not to mention I'm uncertain that Bel and the Dragon can be described as "scholarship" whether poor or good. It's a legendary story attached to a legendary story attached to an apocalypse.

I wouldn't consider all of Daniel as apocalyptic literature. There is some sections in Daniel that is apocalyptic but the majority would be considered historical or historical fiction (depending on how much one buys into the modern historical criticism methods).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wouldn't consider all of Daniel as apocalyptic literature. There is some sections in Daniel that is apocalyptic but the majority would be considered historical or historical fiction (depending on how much one buys into the modern historical criticism methods).

That's what I meant. A legend (Bel and the Dragon) attached to a legend (the narrative portions of Daniel) attached to an apocalypse (the apocalyptic portions of Daniel). Or a legend attacked to an apocalypse attached to a legend, depending on whether you think the narrative or apocalyptic portions are older (I really have no opinion).

 

[squint]

Then elaborate I will. I am suggesting that we reevaluate who had authority to write scripture. You call the bible uniform? Then how do you explain how hopelessly divided the christian community is?

Close examination of Biblical presentations regarding sin will fruitfully yield the answer to that question. And, for the record, it is far from hopeless in any case.

Did Jesus not say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? If ever there was an example of a divided house it is bible-base christianity. Jesus received authority to deliver the faith to the saints publicly at His baptism. He proceeded to select 12 disciples and train them day and night for over 3 years. Prior to leaving Jesus informed the 12 that they would be sent "another comforter", a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth, to complete their training. This example gave us the model for what it took to become qualified to write scripture. I have never seen evidence that anyone else but the saints were so qualified. Have you? The names of the people who selected the books of the bible are suspiciously missing. This means that we lack any credible evidence that they were qualified to construct a bible. Do you need more elaboration?

Why would anyone expect mass produced cookie cutter believers?

Every person is a unique individual. It is only common sense that subjective sights will be factually produced because no one has an identical life experience.

That is the beauty of life in any case of observation, even when it's sometimes tragic or unfortunate.

 

[squint]

squint, you are quite right that the disciples were radically unorthodox and classically gnostic. Guess who they learned it from? The people who told you that bible-orthodoxy, whatever the hell that means, would protect you from hearesy were clueless. All you have managed to shield yourself from is "the truth that sets us free".

I have zero uses to protect God from reality. (the gnostic/Marcionism presentation you made about the evil creator as opposed to the supposed 'real' God who is only good.)

 

[squint]

Well Bel and the Dragon is gnostic, and have you ever read it? If so what poor biblical scholarship do you find in this section in the Book of Daniel?

It is seriously juvenile. Like something a young teenager would have written in recounting Daniel itself. I haven't read the critical background on it. How it made the 'cut' in anything but as an item of non-relevant historical interest is beyond me. But it is part of the DC.

 

[Erose]

That's what I meant. A legend (Bel and the Dragon) attached to a legend (the narrative portions of Daniel) attached to an apocalypse (the apocalyptic portions of Daniel). Or a legend attacked to an apocalypse attached to a legend, depending on whether you think the narrative or apocalyptic portions are older (I really have no opinion).

To much complication for me. Me I like it simple.