Christians why do you accept a heavily edited version of the New Testament?

Question

There are many ancient text that are supposed to be the teachings of Jesus, why would these be questionable/rejectable and the others be doctrine? Do you have faith in Jesus or the Council of Nicaea?

wow... people take this as an attack... interesting... sorry if you felt attacked, it is not at all my intention.
And no I don't get my information from Hollywood but thanks for assuming that you know my intentions, or that I'm an uneducated and liberal...

Answer 1

I like most of them. It doesn't bother me. I study.

If I have a question, I have a concordance, other versions especially the King James that co relates to it, an Expository Dictionary, and now a new Bible Dictionary. Let's face it, I'm loaded and I can study with assurance that I am getting what the Greek and Hebrew say.

I am not afraid.

By the way, while I was at a Christian book store, I noticed that they had an Interlinear English/ Greek/ Hebrew Bible with Strong's numbers. I have my eyes on that one, I can tell you!

Answer 2

I noticed in your biography that you didn't list Minister, so I'm assuming you didn't go to seminary?

And I'll also assume YOU haven't actually read the "ancient texts" you seem to think are "supposed to be the teachings of Jesus," or else you'd do more than simply repeat the same, tired nonsense that's repeated on this board.

You mention the Council of Nicaea (325, by the way) were there other "councils," or meetings? How about the meeting in Jerusalem, in 50?

Since you seem committed to repeating half-baked ideas, here's an excerpt from a term paper I'm writing, feel free to take it on face value, as well, and repeat it over and over . . .

Before the Stoic-influenced Hellenized Christianity of Paul was institutionalized by the Roman Catholic Church, the Essene-based mystical, spiritual teachings of Jesus captured the hearts and minds of the very first Christians. Introducing Essene ideas like communal meals and baptism into the community of followers, the new theology was like nothing ever seen before. The Essenes believed in separating themselves from society, and after the examples of Moses and John the Baptist spending time in the wilderness – the historical hideout for criminals throughout the ages – Jesus, too spent time in the wilderness.
But he didn’t remain. He returned from the wilderness to spread his message, including other Essene ideas of communal living, impending apocalypse and the promise of eternal life for the soul.

Answer 3

The New Testament was not "heavily edited". In fact you can not show any proof that it was. The reason you speak of "Other" books is because you are trusting in liberal Hollywood for your education. The council of Nicaea was responsible for weeding out the false books. Books like "The Gospel according to Judas", or the countless letters that claimed to be written by apostles. The council of Nicaea had several criteria books needed to have in order to be canonized. The first is very basic and perfectly logical: It must be written by the individual it claims wrote it. Every book you are speaking of was written in excess of 100 years after the time of Christ. Some have even been dated up to 300-400 years after the time of Christ. I do not know about you but I will not accept a that claims to be written by the apostle peter 300 years after he died. Another criteria was that it must be written by a person who had direct contact with Jesus. Quite honestly your question lacks knowledge. Why don't you study this for yourself instead of taking the word of a liberal Hollywood.

Answer 4

I DON'T... I use one all the time that resembles the second form of my username, the one spelled with Greek letters.

There were 4 (and ONLY 4) "Gospels" identified about 150 years BEFORE the councils debating the canon, (as demonstrated by the Muratorian Canon, c. 170 A.D. Dr. Bruce Metzger's translation is at http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html ) so the recent claims recirculating about the several pseudopigrapha "Gospels" was not an issue in the second century (when most of them were written.)

Are there documents which might have deserved a more thorough treatment in the process of determining the canon? Certainly, though the most prominent of them are almost never mentioned... they don't seem to be as politically charged as the pseudopigrapha, but that goes back to the reason someone FORGED the document to begin with.

When was the last time you saw the Didache mentioned with respect to canonicity?

Answer 5

I think it's always interesting that those who claim the most vehemently that the Bible is corrupted are the ones least interested in its message.
Here's the facts:
1. There are tens of thousands of copies of the New Testament Gospel from the first four centuries of Christianity, and none of them show evidence of 'heavy editing'. Some of these date to within 30 years of Christ's Resurrection.
2. Many thousands of these are fragments, sometimes only a page, sometimes only a few lines. Scholars are able to identify them by matching the phrases in the fragments to the complete text of the Gospels as we have them. This would be impossible if there were 'heavy editing' going on. The fact is that EVERY copy we have of the Gospels correlates to the Gospels in their final form as we have them in the New Testament.
3. The Gnostic Gospels all contradict each other. In the Magdalene Gospel, Mary is the 'special disciple'. In Thomas, it's (you guessed it) Thomas. In contrast the Canonical Gospels all reinforce each other. They all present the same picture of Jesus, who is not hiding things.
4. The Gnostic Gospels never refer to the Old Testament. The very word 'Christ' (=Meshiah='Messiah') comes from the Old Testament. There are more than four hundred references to the Old Testament in the Canonical Gospels, more than a hundred in Jesus' direct quotations. These books were in circulation among the early churches beginning in the 1st Century. None of the Gnostic Gospels were even written in the 1st Century, and all of them were rejected by the Early Church.
The only people who want Christians to accept the Gnostic Gospels are people who don't believe in Christ to begin with.

Answer 6

I have faith in Jesus, but I also believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us, as I have seen for myself how the Holy Spirit can work among church leaders when they seek the H.S.'s leadership among them, and I trust that the Holy Spirit was present at the council of Nicea.

The books they chose were those that reflected what was already being practiced and believed by Christians. There were also strict guidelines as to what books could be included, based upon the closeness of the writers to Jesus and the disciples, or if they were considered to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Here, too, they had specific levels of validity required.

That is why the "gospels" of Thomas, Judas, and Mary Magdelene did not "make the cut." They were considered unreliable according to these guidelines.

Answer 7

You think that the God who holds the universe in His hand isn't powerful enough to have sovereignty over what should or shouldn't go in His Bible? I trust Him that He has given us all we need --- not to mention that the Bible *never* contradicts itself and any of the unchosen books always contradict what is in scripture --- even if there's just ONE sentence or even a word that contradicts scripture, it can't be accepted as divinely inspired.

God's Word has told us that "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" --- in other words, even when man is playing dice, God is still controlling how it lands. And yet you think that He didn't also have control over the Council of Nicaea?

Answer 8

... I accept the NT alone, the Council of Nicea decided the Books. I know about the other books, and gnostic writings, and the councils up to the 16th century...

AND YES I'M CHRISTIAN

adn yes the gospel of Saint Thomas is very interesting

Answer 9

I've read some of the other documents and letters, but remain unconvinced. There's a couple of them in the New Testament that I question too, but I suppose they have their reasons for being there

Answer 10

The Bible provides all the information one needs. Anything rejected has no affect on truth or doctrine.