NationStates Jolt Archive

Apocryphal books from what I've heard is fascinating. Curious to see how many christians has accepted them as truth.

What are Apocryphal books?

Deuterocanonical books (accepted by Catholicism, but not by Protestantism) or pseudographia (accepted by no one)?

What are Apocryphal books?
Basically books like the Gospel of Thomas that were not accepted by the Council of Nicaea, I think.

Dunno.. haven't come across any..

On the other hand, I do enjoy Christian philosophy, some of which is of dubious origin (e.g. the Pseudo-Dionysius). But in those cases, not knowing a manuscript's true authorship doesn't really matter, since it's not claiming to have witnessed anything, etc.

I'll say no. The Infancy Gospels (for example) are way beyond reasonable, they are fictional story telling (although they seem to have influenced Mohammed when he wrote the Qur'an, it references a couple of the Infancy gospel stories ~ like bringing the clay bird figurines to life).

I am an active believer, a Christian, and I will not say that they (Christian Apocrypha) shouldn't be read, I've read most of the Apocrypha works at one time or another, but I do believe that you need to have a complete and full understanding of your own faith first and then also an understanding of the history around the particular book to be read before delving too deeply into it. The Acts of Peter and the Acts of John, for example, seem to be a different type of book than the Infancy gospels (written just to entertain)... So there is reason to delve into it.

However, when it comes to the poll, I voted no, I do not 'accept' them.

ive read up on them in the past. i found them poorly written. not narratives like the 4 gospels.

i wasnt impressed and felt that i could see why they were discounted.

I've read the Gospel of James and the Book of Enoch and found them both to be pretty fascinating. Do I find them canonical with the rest of scripture? Not enough to be included, anyway. I'm sure there may be certain truths to be found in some, if not all of them, but they've been deemed to be books not written 'in the spirit'.

So, really, I can't answer your poll, as I think there may be some truth intertwined with fiction.

Im an athiest, but I have watched several documentaries on them.
Its interesting to see what these texts contain, as much of it is truly incongruent to the bible.
The Gospel of Mary insinuates that Mary was the most beloved of the Disciples, and very likely, Jesus wife.

Thomas, makes no reference to Jesus' divinity, crucifixion, or any miracles, at all.
Jesus is not referred to as "Lord", but "Rabbi", or "Teacher".

Others insinuate Jesus confiding a disciple who was concerned that all people who didnt believe, were sent to hell.
Jesus comforts him by saying that all people go to hell for a time, and are then judged.
Those who fail, are simply required to stay in hell longer, abut eventually, are released.
He then tells the disciple, not to tell anyone, for fear that they might see this as a liscence to sin.

Much of what I have seen paints Jesus as more of a person, and less of a "god", and the true wisdom of the bible, is able to shine through, as opposed to the "approved" texts, that focus on inflicting fear, and guilt, while professing love.

I noticed two things.

It shows what a douchebag Paul was.

It makes me wonder why one text concerning Christ is acceptable, and considered "gospel", and the other is not?

That answer is simple.

The Church simply wants you, as a christian, to accept what it gives you as truth, and nothing else.
They dont want you to see Jesus as a man, or husband, or even father...they want you to see him only as a divine aspect of God.

They didnt want you to think of women as equals in the eyes of God to men.
Back then, you were to see women only as subserviant to men, and not allowed to enter the priesthood, even though Jesus' wife, was probably intended to lead the church, after Christ's death.

This is an example of douchebaggery.

I find things like this fascinating. To think so many people base their beliefs on a book which has being subject to so much interpretation and theological debate, when it was only a small group of people hundreds of years ago who decided what exactly it would consist of.

If I had the time, I might study them. However, too much college reading right now. What I do find hilarious is the fact Paul's account is so important to the bible when he never even met Jesus and said he had come to him in a vision and told him that he didn't really mean a lot of what he said, but would tell Paul what he REALLY meant.

ive read up on them in the past. i found them poorly written. not narratives like the 4 gospels.

i wasnt impressed and felt that i could see why they were discounted.
The four gospels seem to be written better than, not only the apocrapha, but better than much of the rest of the Bible because they have been repeatedly revised, added to, subtracted from, and "improved" over the centuries. Christianity was originally founded by those who today would be referred to as "the working poor." Jesus himself worked as a carpenter before beginning his ministry. In this period in Gallilie, the working poor seldom knew how to read and write, much less be able to compose accounts which would form the basis of an entire new religion.

Most of what we call "The New Testament" today, was written many years after the crucifixtion, and indeed may be based on an unknown earlier document, sometimes called "The 'Q' Document (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/nt17.htm)." Combined with the extensive rewriting of later ages, these facts tend to make the "literal interpretationist" approach to Biblical study highly questionable indeed.

It shows what a douchebag Paul was.

You don't even need to look at non-canon scripture to figure out that Paul was an asshat.

You don't even need to look at non-canon scripture to figure out that Paul was an asshat.

A wide-brimmed one at that.