How can you tell false doctrine from the rest?
2007-12-17 08:43:05 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The gnostic texts are not defined as Divinely inspired writings.
Through the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is the Church built upon who brought together the authentic text of the Sacred Scriptures.
The deuterocanonical text are the text that Jesus and His Apostles are quoted from in the Gospel text. This is why the Catholic Church declared over 1600 years ago that these letters are the authentic Word of God. If they are good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for Catholics.
2007-12-17 08:49:53 · answer #1 · answered by Lives7 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The rejected books were incompatible with what became orthodoxy in the Christian church. But they are still a fascinating look at how Christian beliefs varied between communities and over time. Sincere people believed and followed the doctrines presented in each book at one time or another. And a few of their ideas are actually useful for spritual practice.
But their essential underlying beliefs proved unworkable for building up a viable community. Gnosticism in particular was problematic. If they had stuck with the idea of "Christ in you" as a model for thought and behavior, they could have done much for Christian spirituality, but their obsession with dualism (good/spirit vs evil/flesh) was not a practical way to live and their insistence on "enlightenment" through learning esoteric "secrets" was an isolating spirtual trap. In its wisdom, Christianity determined that it was to be "saved" in community, not as separate individuals. Christ's example of service and sacrifice didn't fit the Gnostic ideal of personal transcendence.
If Gnosticism had somehow prevailed over orthodoxy, its elitism would not have been accessible to the majority of people and it would likely have died out. (What good is a self-destructing religion?) The Christian outreach to even the lowliest members of society was key to its success. Its doctrines and moral tenets were comprehensible and made sense, even if they were not the easiest standards to meet. The idea of risking one's own security and comfort for the sake of those who have less spoke to a broader, nobler vision of life beyond mere self-survival, even if it didn't guarantee happiness. By comparison, Gnosticism seemed somehow selfish, even if its goal was a "pure" faith.
The winners of the doctrinal wars ended up determining the contents of the Christian testament, but that doesn't mean Christians can't learn from occasionally reading about how Christianity could have turned out. The distinction between a "true" doctrine and a "false" one is not a matter of verifying facts but of determining whether it is an idealistic fantasy or a workable ethical system.
2007-12-17 17:10:26 · answer #2 · answered by skepsis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some of the writers of the Bible actually make reference to apocrypha (ie.. Jude 14 -- refers to the first book of Enoch).
I don't know that I distrust these non-biblical sources but I don't rely on them as God inspired canon.
I rely solely on the Biblical canon, but I read avidly other texts to gain greater insight to the context of the times in which the Bible was written.
The Bible teaches me how I can discern a false doctrine:
1John 2:14
"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Messiah."
1John 4:3
"but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
2007-12-17 16:54:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not a response to this question but to someone commenting on this question. WAKE UP DAVID. The King James version translation of the Bible was done to improve King James' bad personal image. He was a cruel ruler. It is the first version that was done in English. It had absolutely nothing to do with what is Biblically sound. If you want to read the real version I suggest you start learning Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
I perfer the Bible alone. I have read some of the aprocrypha and it was good reading.
2007-12-17 16:53:28 · answer #4 · answered by maidmarion15 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have read the aprochyrpha. I have only read one gnostic text. I have to say I enjoyed most of the books of the apochrypha more than the one gnostic book. Use your discernment. We should search for God everywhere and when we don't find Him, wipe the dust from your feet!!
2007-12-17 16:48:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Roman Emperor Constantine formed the Bible in the $th Century. Pagan rituals were added such as Christmas and Sunday day of rest.
2007-12-17 16:47:06 · answer #6 · answered by Mike 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The gnostic gospels scared the hell out of the early church because they did not teach of hell fire and brimstone. They taught of a Jesus who spoke of love and enlightenment.
Try to find enlightenment in the bible. It is not there.
The biblical monster threw Adam and Eve out for obtaining knowledge.
2007-12-17 16:53:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have read them and found the book of Wisdom interesting
but they are not like the other books that have the Son of God as a central theme
2007-12-17 18:19:34 · answer #8 · answered by sego lily 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bible.
By whether or not is is false when contrasted with the rest.
By the testimony of two or three witnesses ...
2007-12-17 16:50:30 · answer #9 · answered by Wire Tapped 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I rely on the KJV bible only. The rest is just fiction!
2007-12-17 16:53:14 · answer #10 · answered by Scooterette1! 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋