Evidence for God from Science

Thanks for the info! I didn't know it was written after his death and resurection. I tried looking it up last night but no where had any info I could use, I just got a lot of amazon.com things going on, lol. I never did think to wiki it!
Would you like some coffee? It'll be decafe for me.

Gabrielman wrote:Thanks for the info! I didn't know it was written after his death and resurection. I tried looking it up last night but no where had any info I could use, I just got a lot of amazon.com things going on, lol. I never did think to wiki it!
Would you like some coffee? It'll be decafe for me.

I thought it might be helpful to give the definition of "pseudepigrapha," since it is not "apocryphya." Pseudepigrapha from http://www.spreadinglight.com/theology/ ... rapha.html: Pseudepigrapha literally means false writing. It gets its name from the fact that the books that are classified as such have false author claims. Such a book is the Gospel of Thomas which is not accepted to have been written by Thomas but instead written several centuries after that. Another book is the Book of Enoch which claims to have been written by the Enoch of Genesis who "walked with God and then was no more."

While numerous accepted books of the Bible have been attacked by liberal scholars as having been written much later - for example some claim the book of Daniel could not have been written until the 1st or 2nd century BC - books that are classified as pseudepigrapha have essentially no support for their authorship claims.

A list of OT pseuepigrapha can be found here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... grapha.htm

A definition of "apocrypha" from the same source as above: The word is taken from the Greek language and means something that is hidden. As it relates to the Bible it is in reference to certain books of the Bible that are questioned by some Christians. The most common example of this is the books of the Catholic church that the Protestant church rejects.

The reason some books are rejected has to do with many factors. The canon of scripture left these books out however. Part of the apocrypha is the pseudepigrapha. These writings are rejected as they claim to be by a person who didn't write it such as the Gospel of Thomas which is believed to have been written several centuries after the apostle Thomas.

There is a Wikipedia article on the biblical apocrypha here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha


Doesn't this look great! Thanks - I'd have to go with decaf too!

Thanks for that info! I am looking up a few more extra biblical books and that is a real help! I am going to check the links here in a bit. Hmmm... I also need to look up the apocrypha. I read them a little once, but I am not sure if they should be in the Bible or not. Didn't they used to be in the Bible though? Like in the middle ages? You are one of the most helpful people on this site! Thank you!
And yeah that does look like a nice coffee!

Gabrielman wrote:Thanks for that info! I am looking up a few more extra biblical books and that is a real help! I am going to check the links here in a bit. Hmmm... I also need to look up the apocrypha. I read them a little once, but I am not sure if they should be in the Bible or not. Didn't they used to be in the Bible though? Like in the middle ages? You are one of the most helpful people on this site! Thank you!
And yeah that does look like a nice coffee!

Thanks! I added a link to the apocrypha after you posted!

onslaughtmusic wrote:I was not referring to Paul.......I was talking about Peter? Or did you misread? Yes Jesus' favorite man Peter had a gospel too banned and forgotten by the church..

So what do you want to know? Or are you stating what you think is the case and do not want to 'hear' any adjustments to your favoured view of view? Now, are you referring to the Gospel of Peter? There were apocalypses in Peter's name which also never made it into the Christian canon. If you are referring to the Gospel of Peter then you should be made aware that this was written in the early second century and after Peter's death. It is a cross between apocalyptic and Gnostic in its nature and is transparently - to anyone seriously interested in the truth - not written by Peter.

onslaughtmusic wrote:And i was simply pointing out that the issue of Jesus being human or divine was officially resolved in the 3rd century. Up until then the topic was a controversial issue and under debate. My point was if all holy texts were included the bible would be even more controversial than it is now not only in a science vs creation concept but the profits contradicting them selfs, which in the end will not convince anyone it's true if one guy says jesus was human another he was a god and a 3rd saying he never even died on the cross, so they just included the ones that made most sense and were fit for society at that time, the others banned and forgotten.

Again, you are wrong. Have you been reading Dan Brown's Davinci Code, by any chance? Jesus, as is clear from the earliest Christian writings of Paul and then Mark through John, was always considered both human AND divine; mainstream Christianity always knew Jesus was both human and divine. There were Gnostic Christians, Docetist Christians and dithetist Christians (like Marcion) who were knocking about, of course. Marcion, for instance, claimed Paul to be "the apostle of the heretics". So we can immediately see into the state of marcion's mind; this is the most absurd statement to be made by any unorthodox Christian.

The official resolving of the issue of Christ's humanity AND divinity was actually the fourth century and was in direct response to Arius and was achieved by a gathering of 220 Bishops at Nicaea where 218 of them voted in favour of Athanasius who affirmed the paradoxical understanding of Jesus as divine yet human. The vast majority of Christians always KNEW this, but the council of Nicaea was called to once and for all put a stop to the heretical Arianism. And docetism, to boot.

So the noncanonical Gospels, Acts and Apocalypses are noncanonical precisely because they are unorthodox, heretical (false teachings), and not fit for orthodox Christianity. Sorry if the tone of my post is slightly tutorial, but your ignorance of the facts rather called for the lesson.

Dan