Why I belive we have the right books in the New testament!

[SavedByGrace82]

I believe that many of you have heard about Marcion of Sinope. He was born ca. 85 and dead ca. 160 AD. He was the first one who created a canon. He used the gospel of Luke and ten of Pauls epistel.

Many believe that the gnostic gospels was written in the first century - but if they was written in this time - I belive that Marcion had used this gospels. But he did not.

this tells me that the gnostic gospels was written after Marcions death. What do you believe in all this?

 

[IisJustMe]

We have the correct and only 27 inspired books.

 

[Harry3142]

Marcion was so antisemitic that he would only permit The Gospel of St. luke to be in his Bible after he had purged what we would identify as the first two chapters from it (There was no seperation of chapters and verses until the 16th century). The other gospels he refused to permit at all because they were entirely too Jewish. Many of the epistles he refused to include because they were too Jewish to suit him.

He also was one of those who taught that there were two gods. The God of the Jews, who had created all that was material and led his people to victory over their enemies, was seen by him as inherently evil, so there would be no Old Testament books in his Bible. Instead, we were to worship a God exemplified by Jesus Christ as Marcion defined him, namely, stripped of all Jewish identity, and instead set apart as someone who had just dropped into history.

As for the books of the New Testament as we have them now, they were all compiled by 170 AD, with the exceptions of Hebrews and James. As well, we have historical evidence identifying when they were written:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

Note that there are 4 gospels, not one, which are listed as being in existence and being used at that time. Along with these gospels there were letters of Paul, as well as letters from other apostles, which were all accepted as Holy Writ. There was one book which they knew to be a forgery, and so would not read it when the church came together. There was also The Wisdom of Solomon, which is not included in our New Testament, but is one of those in the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.

In a backhanded way we owe Marcion our gratitude. It was at least in part due to his insistence that only one of the gospels be accepted (and that one only after his mutilation of it), and the backlash his hatred of all things Jewish caused, that there was from that time forward an insistence that all 4 gospels be included in the Holy Bible.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Since I'm not allowed to respond back to a private message informing me of the deletion of my post. Would an administrator please delete my account at Christian Forums. I will not participate in this community.

Sincerely,

g_n_o_s_i_s

 

[Clearly]

G n o s i s – Perhaps your posts in this thread (and mine&#8230 were deleted unintentionally since 1) I didn’t receive any notice as to any deletions and 2) I can’t imagine anyone complained regarding a historical issue, especially since no one was maligned and the conversation was completely civil. And 3) it was of a historical nature. Can I reply to your last post ? Perhaps I can give the context first...

Post # 5 by g n o s i s said : Hejsan SBG82,

I don't think that is enough though, sharing one idea is far from accepting the corpus of another system. Marcion was the arch-literalist, in a sense he is the first fundie christian. There was no room for mythos nor for gnosis in Marcions system. I doubt he would be any more interested in the Gnostic texts than the Orthodox where. If we can use arguments like that we have to move all epistles save the 10 pauline ones to post-Marcion. All those epistles held salvation by faith in Jesus. Marcion had the same belief system and had they been around he would have used them. I'm sure you see the fallacy in your argument. Cheers,




I then replied :


Gnosis in post #5 explained : “… sharing one idea is far from accepting the corpus of another system. “
And “…Marcion was the arch-literalist, …. There was no room for mythos nor for gnosis in Marcions system. “

Gnosis :
Thank you for making these points. They make perfect sense in context.

I’ve wondered if, as a gnostic, you sometimes have to roll your eyes at the inaccurate and over-simplistic references to “gnostic” texts. I think that as the early and various sacred texts become more familiar and studied, new ways to categorize early texts will help clear up the confusion created by the lumping of many unfamiliar texts into the “gnostic” category.

I think the reason early scholars lumps certain texts into the "gnostic" literature was the lack of an appropriate classification for texts that did not “fit” into the early classification systems. “Gnostic” Matthew was the same as “non-gnostic” Matthew and so biblical Matthew causes no discomfort in categorization. But what does an early editor such as charlesworth (et all) DO with a text that didn’t “fit” into the early, simplistic and limited categories but shrug their shoulders and call it “gnostic”.

I feel almost apologetic when I think of the confusion this created for modern gnostic Christians (though I did not create the situation, nor am I gnostic, but I still empathize for them since they did not create the confusion that surrounds their texts.)




THE EVER TENTATIVE "UNIVERSAL" CANON

The question as to what did and what should now constitute the “official” Christian “canon” is increasingly asked as we discover more texts used by and considered sacred by early Judao-Christians. Usually this question is asked in a narrow and very provincial context, without sufficient reference to times and place. I do not think this broad HISTORICAL question can be answered simply.

Though no one knows how many various Judao-Christian “canons” of various sacred texts may have existed within various Christian movements over the centuries, it is ironic that the scholars and creators of biblical translations themselves are quite able to admit they “do not know” regarding the current western canon, while non historian, non educated, non-scholars often have the firmest opinions on the subject.

The on-going controversies taking place among scholars and creators of biblical translations as to what a canon should look like and how it should read (i.e. which sources to use and what the “correct” translation should be) remain fairly active while the average Christian in Sunday school has no concept that any such controversies are going on.

Period historians are quite aware of controversies and disagreements surrounding a “canon” during the reformation, but are often unaware that such controversies continue to be unsettled nowadays. For example, K. Alands’ question of a reduction of the current canon in the 1960s or Kasemanns questioning of making a “canon within the canon” both resulted in an essentially smaller canon to alleviate concerns of textual diversity. (J.D.G. Dunn also weighed in on this notion). I think L.M. McDonald is correct that this suggestion to reduce the size of the present western canon would NOT eliminate discomforting Christian diversity.

Once the west formed it’s version of a “canon”, I do not think revisions to them will be well received and thus could possibly increase controversy, rather than settle it. The Jesus Seminars’ promotion of BOTH reducing AND expanding the current canon (by including G of Thomas and the egerton Papyris’ unknown Gospel and by excluding the Apocalypse) is well intentioned, but probably unrealistic.

Metzger probably is correct that though the “canon” is different for different groups IN PRINCIPLE (since it already IS different between scholars and non-scholars, and it IS different between the west and some Eastern Christians), in ACTUALITY, a biblical revision or correction of the western canon for provincial groups would be difficult to accomplish.

Individuals who are familiar with a wide variety of early Judao-Christian texts have varying “wish lists” for what should have been included and what should have been left out of the western canon. Some would like to see original enochian texts included in the western canon since it offers so much context for early creation council histories. Though the apocryphologist Charles found 128 references from enoch in the New Testament text, still, the amount of enoch in current versions of new Testaments is spotty and non-contiguous so that what is there does not provide much early Judao-christian context for pre-creation history (e.g. the inception of God’s plan for the spirits of mankind; the war in heaven; Lucifer’s fall from heaven and his process of becoming satan… etc). This material would have cleared up many of the controversies modern Christian theorists argue over ad nauseum.

Though the Modern “eastern” Ethopian canon includes an enoch and jubilees which is an advantage to them. Still if enough of the correct context is not provided within this additional text, then one cannot take greatest advantage of the extra textual information. This is important since it is CONTEXT that is so important to interpretation. For example, though 4-5th century New Testament C. Sinaiticus included Barnabas and portions of Hermas, without the earlier context, then some of its textual themes might seem quite foreign and confusing to later Christians though they were orthodox to early Judao-Christianities.

I believe that, without having a good understanding of a large portion of the early sacred texts within the earliest contexts, then the earliest Judao-Christian sacred texts cannot make the same sense and thus, even IF we included many of the earlier sacred Judao-Christian texts into the current western canon, it will not rescue us from this current situation where individual christianities and their theologians create a multitude of religious theories, and then both offer them up as a representation of early Christianity as well as argue them endlessly against the other multitudes of Christian theories.


You then replied :


Gnosis replied : 1) “We do have better categorization of most "gnostic" texts. They are usually classified by what schools authored them. We have Valentinian texts, Sethian text, Thomasine texts, Hermetic texts, etc. Sure some we just don't know and some are still argued but in large we have good classification of the texts. Further you have sub classification like eastern Valentinian texts vs western Valentinian texts. The problem of course is most just don't have the time or interest in figuring out what is what and just calling them gnostic is perhaps the best we can hope for.”

2) “Technically I don't think there are Gnostics any more, we have their texts but we miss so much in how the Gnostics worshiped and how they administered their sacraments that reviving them are next to impossible. The closest we have are neo-Gnostics that try to incorporate what little we have into a hybrid Gnostic-Orthodox system. I classify myself as a Christian with heavy Gnostic leaning. Cheers and thanks for a great reply,”




My current comment is :


Part of the difficulty with a non-specific term such as “gnostic” is that the early Christian disciples themselves, claimed to have “special knowledge” given to them during the 40 day period that Jesus was with the disciples and taught them. This time period and what Jesus taught is, to a great extent, “lost to history” and little is known about what was taught. The disciples who claimed to know what Jesus taught them claimed to have special knowledge (i.e. what Jesus taught,…i.e. “gnosis”&#8230 However, the individuals we now know as “gnostics” are not the early disciples but an entirely different group. The difficulty I was referring to with “gnostic literature”, is that when a specific text was discovered and it did not neatly fit into “aprocrypha” or epigrapha, or pseudoepigrapha, it was often simply called “gnostic” and put into that group of texts though it was clearly NOT a “gnostic” document. Thus, we have a mixed lot of documents, some ARE “gnostic”, some are NOT “gnostic”, and others don’t fit any of the categories that existed at the time the texts were discovered. THAT is what I meant.

Clearly
twsiaclk

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Clearly,

I appreciate you trying to stick up for me. The message I received from cmjames84 have deemed me a non-nicean christian and I'm not allowed to participate in any forum classified as Christian Only which apparently Christian History is (since it is a sub-forum of Theology-Christian Only?) but I'm OK to post under Unorthodox Theology (even though it is a sub-forum of Theology-Christian Only?). To be sure I'm more than confused, but it is clear I'm not welcome here. So please Administrator - Would you remove my account.

Sincerely,

g_n_o_s_i_s