Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Angel,
    
    I think your girl friend has a pretty good understanding of the
    situation.  I have not read the Gospel of Thomas but it has been
    suggested that it is every bit as authentic as the four Gospels that
    made the cut.  Many Gnostic Gospels were left out also.  
    
    A group of men determined which books made it and which did not.
    
    The history of the Old testament is even more difficult because there
    was so much editing and reediting of each of the books that it is
    difficult to know how many different authors wrote each.  Issiah is a
    good example.  It is widely believed that there are two different
    Issiah's recorded in that book.  The time span difference is hundreds
    of years.
    
      That is why there are two different creation stories in
    Genesis.  That is the JEPD theory that is being discussed elsewhere.  
    
    I am only an amateur in learning about the Bible but it has a truly
    amazing History.  The  history is important because it shows us what a 
    living document the Bible has been.  It does an amazing disservice to this
    wonderful document to idolize it, freeze it in time, and thereby strip
    it of its beauty and life. 
    
    Patricia

God did indeed write the books that are in the Bible and
not the Gospel of Thomas.  There is a lot of discussion
about the Bible in here from the few who accept
it to be the inerrant Word of God to the many who believe
that it was written by humans seeking God.

The YUKON::CHRISTIAN notesfile is a very active notesfile that
is based on the Bible.  There is probably a fair amount of
information in that conference as well.

This notesfile is based on no definition of Christian
whatsoever and the replies will therefore run the gamut
of belief.

    Does anyone have any info on the Gospel of Thomas, and why it didn't
    make the cut?
    
    Marc H.

The Gospel of Thomas was published in 1959 and contains "secret sayings
of Jesus".

A bit suspect, methinks.

/john

The Hebrew bible or TaNaKh consists of the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets
(Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel), the Twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) and the Ketuvim
(Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs [aka Song of Solomon], Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles).

This canon was set by Jewish rabbis during the first and second centuries,
A.D., although final canonization was not complete until the Middle Ages.

The Bible of the early Christians was the Bible in Greek translation from
the Jews of Alexandria, containing exactly the above books, plus writings
which were later excluded from the Jewish canon: I Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach), Additions to Esther,
Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah (Chapter 6 of Baruch in the
King James Version), and additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Holy Children,
History of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon).

These additional books in the Greek Bible are listed in Codex Vaticanus
(c. 350).  Since all extant Greek Bibles are of Christian origin, it is not
known whether these additional Jewish writings were added by the Jews in
Alexandria from literature they brought with them from Palestine or that
they are of Christian origin.  Manuscripts vary in the sequence of these
books, and some manuscripts include other books as well, such as I and II
Maccabees.

There never was unanimity in the Christian Church as to the canonical
status of the Apocryphal books.  A list of the Old Testament books by
Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor (2nd century) does not include the
additional writings in the Greek Bible, and Origen (c. 185-c. 254) explicitly
describes the Old Testament canon as comprising only 22 books (the same books
that are the current 39 books of the Christian Old Testament, arranged and
numbered differently).  From the time of Origen on, the Church Fathers who
were familiar with Hebrew differentiated, theoretically at least, the
Apocryphal books from those of the Old Testament, though they used them
freely.

The biblical scholar Jerome (c. 347-419) separated "canonical books" from
both "those that are read" by Christians only and the "Apocryphal books"
rejected alike by Jews and Christians, which he regarded as good for
spiritual edification but not authoritative scripture.  Augustine, however,
prevailed, and the works remained in the Latin Vulgate.  The Decretum
Gelasianum, a Latin document of uncertain authorship but recognized as
reflecting the views of the Roman Church at the beginning of the 6th century
includes Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and I and II
Maccabees as biblical.

The sixth century manuscript of Peshitta known as Codex Ambrosianus also
has III and IV Maccabees, II Esdras, and Josephus' Wars VII.

Luther's German bible of 1534 separated the books and called them "Apocrypha".

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Church dogmatically affirmed that the
entire Latin Vulgate enjoyed equal canonical status.  This was reaffirmed by
the Vatican Council of 1870.  In the Greek Church, the Synod of Jerusalem
(1672) had expressly designated as canoncal several (I don't have a list)
Apocryphal works.  In the nineteenth century, Russian Orthodox theologians
agreed to exclude these works from the Holy Scriptures.  The King James
Version of the Bible (in complete editions, now quite rare) places the
Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.

For Anglicans "the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth
read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not
apply them to establish any doctrine."  What Jerome meant by this was that
they should not be applied to establish any doctrine in discussions with
the Jews, who did not accept these books.  Included are the books listed above
in the Alexandrian Bible plus II Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses (mentioned
in II Chronicles 33:12/13), and I and II Maccabees.

Around 140, Marcion, who had Gnostic tendencies, set up a canon which
totally repudiated the Old Testament and anything Jewish.  His canon
consisted of "The Gospel" (a version of Luke, the least Jewish) and
the "Apostolikon" (ten epistles of Paul with Old Testament references
edited out, excluding Hebrews, I and II Timothy, and Titus).  Because
of this heresy, the Church decided it needed to form a canon more in
line with the thought of the universal church.

By the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus used the four Gospels, 13 letters
of Paul, I Peter, I and II John, Revelation, "Shepherd of Hermas", and Acts.

The first clear catalog of authoritative New Testament writings is found in
the so-called Muratorian Canon, named for its modern discoverer, L.A.
Muratori (1672-1750).  Written late in the second century, it included the
four gospels, thirteen Pauline epistles (not including Hebrews), Jude, two
of John's letters, and Revelation. It mentions the "Apocalypse of Peter",
saying that it may be read, but that some object, and rejects the "Shpeherd
of Hermas" as lacking any connection with the apostolic age.  It includes
The Wisdom of Solomon.

Clement of Alexandria, in the 2nd century, was essentially unconcerned about
canonicity, and made use of the "Gospel of the Hebrews", the "Gospel of the
Egyptians", the "Letter of Barnabas", the "Didache" and other extracanonical
works.

Origen (died c. 254) listed works based on his travels as "undisputed in the
churches of God throughout the whole world": the four Gospels, 13 Pauline
letters, I Peter, I John, Acts, and Revelation, "disputed": II Peter, II and
III John, Hebrews, James, and Jude, and "spurious": Egyptians, Thomas, and
others.  He used the term "scripture" for "Didache", the "Letter of Barnabas",
and the "Shepherd of Hermas", but did not consider them canonical.

Eusebius shows the situation in the early fourth century:  Universally
accepted: the four Gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline letters (including Hebrews),
I John, and I Peter.  He divided the disputed writings into two classes:
those known and accepted by many (James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John)
and "spurious" but not "foul and impious" (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas,
Apocalypse of Peter, Letter of Barnabas, Didache, and possibly Gospel of the
Hebrews).  He calls "Gospel of Peter" and "Acts of John" "heretically spurious".
Revelation is listed both as fully accepted "if permissible" and as spurious
but not impious.  Eusebius makes authoritative use of the disputed writings,
showing that canon and authoritative revelation were not the same thing.

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, delimited the canon
and settled the strife between East and West.  On a principle of inclusiveness,
both Hebrews and Revelation were included, even though they contradict each
other.  At this point, the definitive 27 books of the New Testament were
canonized.  In the Greek churches there was still controversy over Revelation,
but in the Latin Church, under the influence of Jerome, Athanasius' decision
was accepted.  It was not until the 7th century that the Syriac canon came
into agreement with the 27 books.

    The only thing I read regarding the gospel of Thomas was that there was
    a list of books that were deemed forgeries.  Thomas was among those
    books.  Another book termed a forgery was the Acts of John.
    
    -Jack

    re 824.6
    
    
    Thank you John.
    
    That was an interesting summary of the Canonization process.
    
    
    Patricia

    .8
    
    What exactly does this conference believe?  Since participating in its
    infrastructure, I see the term Christian being perverted into multiple 
    meanings which cannot be validated.
    
    Nancy

    re .6 (COVERT::COVERT)/John
    
>Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, delimited the canon
>and settled the strife between East and West.  On a principle of inclusiveness,
>both Hebrews and Revelation were included, even though they contradict each
>other.  
    
    What are (thought to be) the contradictions between Hebrews and
    Revelation?
    
    
    								-mark.

>    What exactly does this conference believe? 

	Nothing and everything.

			Alfred

  >What exactly does this conference believe? 

This was discussed at length several years ago.  I'm not
sure what the topic was at this point.

The answer:  nothing.

This can be interpreted in several ways:

 - "conferences" don't believe anything
 - the people in this conference are free to define whatever
   they want in whatever way they want

Both standards are upheld in this conference.  (The standard
for the conference is not to have a standard - including a
non-standard - but it nevertheless has a de-facto standard
of nothing.  :-) )

Collis

  >.2  Thank you, Collis.  God knows how far we'd stray if it weren't
  >for your benevolent and genuinely Christian insight.

Your welcome, Richard.  I take it you're referring to my
first paragraph where I give him the answer he's looking
for.  I must admit that the answer without the reasons is
unsatisfying.  Hopefully, he will be able to find the reasons
as well.

Collis

    Re: .10
    
    I can only speak for myself. I'm still actively searching for a better
    relationship with God.
    
    The people in this conference...all the people in this conference, have
    helped me by forcing me to think.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 824.10 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     What exactly does this conference believe?  

        As far as I can determine, a conference can't "believe"
        anything.  If anybody wishes to come down to my office, I'll
        show them the "conference" (or at least the box containing
        it).

        People believe.  If you want to see some of the faith
        statements (and, in a few cases, non-faith statements) of
        participants in this conference, I direct you to the
        "Introduction" topic (#3).

        Bob

    Hi Nancy:
    
    I look at this conference as a seed planting ministry.  Regardless of
    disagreement, I am hoping the Spirit will work through me to get some
    more critical thinking and out with the touchy feeley!!!  Translation:
    The Spirit of God will convict, teach, etc.
    
    -Jack

    So far the consensus is *nothing*. :-) by  default.
    
    However, the premise of the conference should be established regardless
    of smiley faces and box inuendos.
    
    Nancy

    re .10

    As Alfred said in .12 this conference believes in "nothing and
    everything." Nothing unanimously, but everything generally. 

    It provides the backdrop upon which many view of Christianity may be
    displayed. One's Truth may be another's perversion, but remember the
    street goes both ways. It is this very openness that has exposed me to
    conservative ideas that may otherwise have been squelched if the
    conference had rigid guidelines.

    Eric

    .17
    
    :-)
    
    Watch out my take is the participants in this conference don't like
    your seeds. :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

    .19
    
    Secular Humanism seems to be the common thread in here.  Which is
    contrary to the Bible.
    
    Nancy

    > However, the premise of the conference should be established regardless
    > of smiley faces and box inuendos.
    
    	See 1.0

    
      >  The purpose of this conference is to discuss various doctrines,
      >  teachings, and spirituality and their application to living from a
      >  Christian perspective, in which all denominations are welcome, and
      >  in
      >  fact, those who have no denominational affiliation are equally
      >  welcome as well.  In the ensuing discussions, we hope that
      >  historical, contemporary and evolutionary issues of Christianity
      >  will be discussed to help bring greater clarity and inspiration to those
      >  of all spiritual persuasions, particularly Christians.
    
    In looking at this paragraph which encompases the entire premise [all
    subsequent paragraphs were do's and don'ts], I find nothing I disagree
    with.  However, in practice of this premise, I see the term Christian
    being perverted.
    
    Therefore, I believe as stated this conference stands for nothing.
    But, also see sincere, caring and loving individuals participating.
    
    Nancy

    The original .8 has been deleted by the author (me), due to its
    snideness.  And no, Collis, it was not a comment on what you cited.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .23 Nancy

There was a lot of discussion about this in the early days of the
conference.  If you're interested you might want to check out these notes,
for example:

	22	What is a Christian religion?
	34	This Notes File

				-- Bob

    There are at least two very different kinds of Christianity.
    
    1.  A vibrant alive brand that believes that revelation is continuous,
    that no one person or one book possesses absolute truth, that diversity
    of theological ideas is healthy, and that Salvation no matter how it is
    defined is universal.
    
    2.  That revelation was closed  when a collection of the books of
    the Bible were canonized, that Biblical truth is absolute, That correct
    beliefs are a necessary prerequisite for salvation which is only other
    worldly and not this worldly.
    
    Perhaps that is why there are two conferences to reflect what I believe
    are two very diverse religions.  
    
    I love and respect diversity and therefore welcome anyone who wants to
    note here.  It is interesting learning to understanding how
    Inerrantists think and reason.  Sometimes though it feels like persons
    who actively oppose the foundational assumptions of this conference note
    here with the intent of opposing what I think are the foundational 
    theological assumptions of this conference. Perhaps I am wrong.
    
    So do we have some basic theological assumptions that those
    supporting the Christian Perspective Conference adhere too.
    I would propose that those assumptions include:
    
    Openess,
    Open honest search for truth.
    God is Love
    Diversity is Good.
    Each person defines their own Religious Conviction.
    A Christian is a person who in their own heart and soul considers
     themselves a Christian.
    Good works is as much a part of Christianity as correct belief. 
      Perhaps more important.
    
    Do these reflect collective values?
    Are there others?
    
    
    Patricia- who does get just a little annoyed when people disparage the
    wonderful purpose of the conference.
    
    

    Thankyou all for helping out, I definitly now seem to have a better 
    understanding or may I say a better way to explain. Thankyou John 
    for the history lesson. I only hope I did not touch a "touchy"
    subject among all.
    
    Angel.

    For more disparaging and supportive remarks concerning this conference,
    see topics 34 and 417.
    
    Richard
    

    Angel
    
    "Touchy Subject"
    
    We don't have any touchy subjects.  I for one am glad you introduced
    the subject.
    
    Patricia

>    What are (thought to be) the contradictions between Hebrews and
>    Revelation?

Hebrews has been (mis)interpreted by some to imply that it is impossible for
baptised Christians to repent again and be forgiven if they fall into apostasy
after baptism; Revelation does not agree with that interpretation, calling the
apostate Churches to repentance.

/john

    re .30 (COVERT::COVERT)
    
>>    What are (thought to be) the contradictions between Hebrews and
>>    Revelation?
>
>Hebrews has been (mis)interpreted by some to imply that it is impossible for
>baptised Christians to repent again and be forgiven if they fall into apostasy
>after baptism; Revelation does not agree with that interpretation, calling the
>apostate Churches to repentance.
    
    Very interesting.  Thanks for the explanation.
    
    Hebrews *does* seem pretty adamant that a Christian can fall away to
    the point were it's impossible to come back:
    
    		"For it is impossible to restore again to
    		repentance those who have been enlightened, who
    		have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become
    		partakers of the Holy Spirit ... if they then
    		commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son
    		of God on their own account and hold him up
    		to contempt."  (Hen 6:4,6 RSV)
    
    This sounds a lot like the 'unforgivable sin' that Jesus spoke about:
    
    		"... every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven	
    		men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will
    		not be forgiven.  And whoever says a word
    		against the Son of man will be forgiven; but
    		whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will
    		not be forgiven, either in this age or in the
    		age to come."  (Mat 12:21-32 RSV)
    
    I assume the "apostate Churches" you mention are the ones listed in
    1:11 and 2:1-3:22.  As I read them, I don't get the impression that
    they are fully apostate at this point, but are getting close to the
    edge, and Jesus is giving (some of) them warning to turn back before
    they cross the line and commit 'blasphemy against the Spirit' (i.e.
    full apostasy).
    
    							-mark.

    Hebrews 6 is a controversial passage no doubt.  Mark, see the next
    verse after.  If a field produces bad crop, you do not discontinue to
    use the field, correct?  Your interpretation of Hebrews 6 is
    incompatible with many passages, including 1 Corinthians 3, John 10,
    as well as Ephesians 1:13, 2:8,9.  You have put the onus of maintaining
    ones salvation on works and not that of the cross.  This is in and of
    itself a rejection of God's grace.
    
    -Jack

    re 824.32 (AIMHI::JMARTIN)
    
    Hello Jack,
    
    I know this really gets off the base topic of how the canon was formed
    ...
    
>    Hebrews 6 is a controversial passage no doubt.  Mark, see the next
>    verse after.  If a field produces bad crop, you do not discontinue to
>    use the field, correct?  
    
    	So what's your point?  The next verses say:
    
    		"For the land which has drunk the rain
    		that often falls upon it, and brings forth
    		vegetation useful to those for who sake it
    		is cultivated, receives a blessing from
    		God.  BUT if it bears thorns and thistles,
    		it is worthless and near to being cursed;
    		its end is to be burned." (RSV)
    
    Thus, the answer to your question is "Yes," if the field produces a
    "bad crop" or really no crop at all, but only "thorns and thistles",
    this scripture says that use of this field IS discontinued, or more
    directly, the entire field is "burned".  The passage doesn't even
    bother to say whether the field would be used after it was burned, for
    the point is to illustrate the destruction of those who deviate or
    apostasize to the point of not even being able to repent.
    
>                             Your interpretation of Hebrews 6 is
>    incompatible with many passages, including 1 Corinthians 3, John 10,
>    as well as Ephesians 1:13, 2:8,9.  
    
    	In the first place, Hebrews 6 is pretty plain.  Why would it say it
    was "impossible" for some to return if it really wasn't?
    
    	1Cor 3 addresses the problem of some putting their faith in
    prominant men of the 'church':
    
    		"... one says, "I belong to Paul," and another,
    		"I belong to Apollos" ..." (3:4 RSV)
    
    rather than in having a proper "foundation" (v.12) of "Jesus Christ"
    (v.11).  If one's faith has the wrong foundation, it may get "burned
    up" (v.15) for being man's work.  
    
    	How does my interpretation of Hebrews 6 contradict this passage?
    Apostates clearly establish their own views as the foundation for their
    faith, and thus set themselves up to be "burned up" in the sense of
    either passage.
    
    	The first half of John 10 is about Jesus being the "good shepherd"
    (v.11) of God's flock.  He warns of the danger of false shepherds who
    came before him, but who were really "theives and robbers" (v.8).  The
    second half is about Jesus' encounter with people who opposed him for
    claiming to be "one" with the father.  What does this have to do with
    Heb 6; and how does what I say contradict the point of anything in this
    chapter?
    
    	In Eph 1:13, Paul says they have:
    
    		"... heard the word of truth, the gospel of
    		your salvation, and have believed in him, 
    		were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
    		which is the guarantee of our inheritance
    		until we acquire possession of it ..." (RSV).
    
    Hebrews 6 says of those who have received this "promised Holy Spirit"
    by becoming "partakers of the Holy Spirit" (6:4), but who "commit
    apostasy", that "it is impossible to restore [them] again to
    repentance".  Where's the contradiction?  Since Eph 1:13 indicated that
    the "inheritance" was something yet to be acquired in the future, it
    was something that could obviously be lost, just as Esau lost his
    birthright -- sold it actually -- because of being "irreligious" (12:16
    RSV).  In fact, the next verse is the bottom line of the object lesson
    about Esau:
    
    		"For you know that afterward, when he desired to
    		inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he
    		found no chance to repent, though he sought
    		it with tears." (RSV)
    
    	Eph 2:8,9 says:
    
    		"For by grace you have been saved through faith;
    		and this is not your doing, it is the gift of
    		God -- not because of works, lest any man
    		boast."  (RSV)
    
    You say to me:
    
>                                       You have put the onus of maintaining
>    ones salvation on works and not that of the cross.  This is in and of
>    itself a rejection of God's grace.
    
    but I said nothing about "works" being the basis for salvation.  Since
    a person is "saved through faith", a person who "commit's apostasy"
    certainly must no longer possess the faith that would be the basis for
    his salvation.  Unless you're getting hung up on the notion that to
    "commit apostasy" embodies works that one "commits", and thus taking
    the converse that true faith also is judged by actions one commits
    [which according to James 2, is actually true -- though it's not as
    though works "earn" on salvation], I see no basis for saying that
    anything I've said about Heb 6 contradicts the letter or spirit of any
    of these other passages.
    
    	A person who commits apostacy has certainly rejected God's grace. 
    If a person has rejected God's grace especially after they've "tasted
    of the heavenly gift" (Heb 6:4), what argument is there for their
    savlation thereafter?
    
        ==*==
    
    	Getting back to the basenote, I think it's interesting to see how
    conflicting opinions have developed about the meaning of the canonical
    books; but I see no conflict in the books themselves.
    
    
    							-mark.
    

Re:  .26

  >There are at least two very different kinds of Christianity.
  
Oh, I feel left out.  I don't fit into either category and
now I'm lost.  Maybe you can make a new category for me?

Collis

Note 824.6

>Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, delimited the canon
>and settled the strife between East and West.  On a principle of inclusiveness,
>both Hebrews and Revelation were included, even though they contradict each
>other.  At this point, the definitive 27 books of the New Testament were
>canonized.  In the Greek churches there was still controversy over Revelation,
>but in the Latin Church, under the influence of Jerome, Athanasius' decision
>was accepted.  It was not until the 7th century that the Syriac canon came
>into agreement with the 27 books.

I was fascinated to reread this entry.  Does anyone know to what this
portion refers: "both Hebrews and Revelation were included, even though
they contradict each other."

Richard