I thought that the validity of the source was the main reason that books were chosen to be included in the Bible.
Nobody even knows who wrote Hebrews.
Is Hebrews only in the Bible because it didn't conflict with the church's idea of what the religion should be?
2007-03-29 09:33:34 · 9 answers · asked by NONAME 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Great question.
The NT was created to formulate doctrine, not to discover it. Source isn't the main reason for the selection of books, doctrine was. When there wasn't enough doctrine to support a believe, the scribes added it (Mark 16 on). When the doctrine needed bolstering verses were changed (Many instances in the books of John and Luke). Hebrews fit in nicely with the doctrine that the Romans were attempting to create at the time.
It wouldn't do to have the Gospel of Peter included, because it states that he raised a smoked fish from the dead. If that were included, the believers would expect future church leaders to do the same.
Reading about the history of the creation of the NT it VERY interesting, and really should be done by everyone who relies on its teachings for salvation......
Many would be shocked at the process and multiple translations that have been found. Most Christians are taught that the NT was translated exactly as it was written. This is a pure lie, most theologians know this, but don't tell the 'regular' folk because they don't think they can handle it.
Most theologians for all the major Christian denominations, don't even believe in the validity of most stories in the bible, and believe that it is really just a vessel to keep the common folk behaving.
2007-03-29 09:46:22 · answer #1 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Gnostics were a totally different and separate group. They had nothing to do with the Nicene Councils and in their own turn were not using the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were Apocryphal Gospels (Mary, Protoevangelion, and Peter) that were known by the Church but not included. You can read them and the Gnostic Gospels if you wish.
2007-03-29 09:40:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You could possible be right. I did not know that the author of Hebrews was in question. I do know that several of the books attributed to Paul could not have possibly been written by him.
The Gnostic Gospels, which a few actually predate the writings of Paul gave the power to the individual. The church could never allow that to continue. The church was also worried about the role of women so they fabricated that Mary Magdalene was a whore to discredit her. That makes me believe that Mary was most probably much more to Jesus than what is in the bible.
2007-03-29 09:41:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I wasn't at the Council when the Canon of Scripture was approved, but I believe that the Church, the Body of the Living Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit on the First Pentecost, has every right to prayerfully determine whatever books were to be included in the final Canon.
Hebrews was widely circulated and believed, by some to be penned by Apollos, perhaps Barnabas, but that matters not. This is a matter of ecclesiology as much as it is bibliology - what we believe the Church to be.
Is it the organic Body of Christ....or a loose confederation of men? I believe the former.
2007-03-29 09:41:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hebrews is using the Old Testament to talk to the New Testament believers. The gnostic gospels were written to try and kill Christianity. These are two different things!
2007-03-29 10:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by G.W. loves winter! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the Gnostic Gospels pretty much fit right into the Catholic Church's definition of 'heretical'.
The Bible wasn't built on validity of source, otherwise the book would be very thin and pretty useless. Various Councils determined what was dogma and what was heresy, and only dogma was allowed in, regardless of authorship.
2007-03-29 09:38:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
paul wrote it in italy
Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E.
2007-03-29 09:39:22 · answer #7 · answered by gary d 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The church scholars did not deem them "the correct teachings."
2007-03-29 09:39:14 · answer #8 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hahaha. Those old geysers didn't care about validity. Only if they could fit it into the story they wanted to tell.
2007-03-29 09:44:20 · answer #9 · answered by strpenta 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋