Just been watching a show about the “forbidden bible”. Something I’ve read and been interested in for a long time.
Obviously there have been “heretical” texts since…the beginning. Certainly Polycarp’s teacher (can’t remember his name at the moment) was dividing the orthodox from the heretical from very early on…and in many ways his is the text we ended up with.
But my question is, is there REALLY any way to say this was the true bible and the book of Thomas, etc, are incorrect? Beyond that they eventually made the desion? Was it just of the heretics being out numbered? There are some very strange things in there (I mean in the many heretic or apocraphel texts) that seem wrong to us but hey…that’s because they’re not in the book we know.
While we’re at it what about the apocryphal (sp?) like Jubilee. Not false but…not true enough?
Anyway I say again can they REALLY make an argument agaist all those other books that Polycarp (the other one, not ours :)) didn’t like? Or did they just win?
Orthodoxy is a pretty subjective term. In matters of faith, how can you objectively prove that one person’s faith is correct and another person’s is not?
As for the Bible specifically, it’s worth pointing out that the first person that sat down and declared certain books of the New Testament were official scripture and other books were just legends was Marcion of Sinope, a second century Christian theologian. He in effect, edited the first New Testament. But you don’t hear a lot about old Marcion today. Based on his reading of the Bible, he concluded that Jesus was not related to the God of the Old Testament and the two dieties were, in fact, opponents.
Ah, but that’s my point. As far as I’m concernered subjective is just what it it. But for one thing…well it’s not EXACTLY faith I’m talking about. It’s about text. And secondly, what I really want to know is do they have a serious argument? For this text being “legigtimate” and the others not at all. Beyond “this is what i believe” is there a reason for saying the Gospel of Thomas (just as an example) is something a modern Christian should dismiss? (the argumet I most often hear is “it contradicts the bible” that assumtion there being obvious.
As for Marcion of Sinope…that’s very interesting. I hadn’t heard of him myself. But I did know (an this supports it) that the question of Christ’s divivinity and ultimate nature went back to the beginning (and continued for hundereds of years).
So the next question is was he a heretic or on to something? yes I realize ther’s not going to be a simply anwer, certainly not one of faith. But maybe some answer of histiory?