• This forum has been archived

    If you'd like to post a thread, post it here instead!

    View Forum

The Apocalypse of Peter?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LisaLisa

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 4, 2009
3,473
34
yep. Pretty wild stuff but not accepted as authentic by early church. Just like the rest of what is considered "Gnostic". Wouldn't put a lot of faith in them but a lot of fun to read.

Who decided which books were "authentic" and which weren't? How do we know that the other gospels were not also inspired?
 

blondeambition3

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 29, 2009
3,428
1,229
FL, USA
blondeambition3.wix.com
yep. Pretty wild stuff but not accepted as authentic by early church. Just like the rest of what is considered "Gnostic". Wouldn't put a lot of faith in them but a lot of fun to read.

It (as in early Church) believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.... correct?
 

blondeambition3

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 29, 2009
3,428
1,229
FL, USA
blondeambition3.wix.com
Who decided which books were "authentic" and which weren't? How do we know that the other gospels were not also inspired?

The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant denominations, as well as some of the “Christian” Churches (and cults) make this claim.

Roman Catholic would be my guess as they are the most powerful politically and can enact law.
 

blondeambition3

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 29, 2009
3,428
1,229
FL, USA
blondeambition3.wix.com
He professed to have 'eyewitness' revelation & knowledge it appears.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
 

chimney55

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 7, 2010
3,170
1,689
NW Arkansas
What we call the Old Testament was written by the Jews. It was accepted by the Jews and taught in synagogue. If it was in doubt as to being from God, it was left out. Interestingly, Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament quoted from all books of the New Testament. They believed it to be accurate and inspired. As for what we call the New Testament, the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) was completed about 95AD. Many of the books were written by the time that the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem (70AD). What I'm getting at is that the books were written by the people who knew Jesus, who interviewed people who knew Jesus (Luke), or in Paul's case, he was alive at Jesus' time and met Jesus after His resurrection. They weren't conveniently "packaged together" like they are now. But the scrolls were copied and passed to the new churches that were springing up. There were plenty of eyewitnesses to His life. Anyone circulating "false scrolls" or books was immediately stopped and the book was immediately rejected because they knew that it wasn't true. One hundred to 150 years after the death of Christ the "gnostic gospels" started popping up (when there were no more eye witness.) People could see that what they were reading was at variance with what had been written already. These "gospels" were false ("gospels" of Philip and Judas for example). And they were not copied and circulated widely. Contrary to what a lot of people say, the Council of Nicea was NOT to decide which books belonged in the Bible. That had already been decided by the people of the early church who knew Jesus, or had heard the gospel from people who had known Him. IF the books had been inspired and true, there would be a lot more copies of those books in circulation. I also believe that God is in control. If He wanted certain books to be included, they would have been included no matter what anyone else thought or said. If He saw heresy slipping into the church, He would have kept those books out--no matter how many people tried to get them in. The "Apocalypse of Peter" would fall into this category.
 
Last edited:

Southern Gent

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 18, 2009
778
32
60
Tennessee
He professed to have 'eyewitness' revelation & knowledge it appears.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

read carefully...Luke was not an eyewitness...he was much too young
 

Southern Gent

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 18, 2009
778
32
60
Tennessee
What we call the Old Testament was written by the Jews. It was accepted by the Jews and taught in synagogue. If it was in doubt as to being from God, it was left out. Interestingly, Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament quoted from all books of the New Testament. They believed it to be accurate and inspired. As for what we call the New Testament, the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) was completed about 95AD. Many of the books were written by the time that the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem (70AD). What I'm getting at is that the books were written by the people who knew Jesus, who interviewed people who knew Jesus (Luke), or in Paul's case, he was alive at Jesus' time and met Jesus after His resurrection. They weren't conveniently "packaged together" like they are now. But the scrolls were copied and passed to the new churches that were springing up. There were plenty of eyewitnesses to His life. Anyone circulating "false scrolls" or books was immediately stopped and the book was immediately rejected because they knew that it wasn't true. One hundred to 150 years after the death of Christ the "gnostic gospels" started popping up (when there were no more eye witness.) People could see that what they were reading was at variance with what had been written already. These "gospels" were false ("gospels" of Philip and Judas for example). And they were not copied and circulated widely. Contrary to what a lot of people say, the Council of Nicea was NOT to decide which books belonged in the Bible. That had already been decided by the people of the early church who knew Jesus, or had heard the gospel from people who had known Him. IF the books had been inspired and true, there would be a lot more copies of those books in circulation. I also believe that God is in control. If He wanted certain books to be included, they would have been included no matter what anyone else thought or said. If He saw heresy slipping into the church, He would have kept those books out--no matter how many people tried to get them in. The "Apocalypse of Peter" would fall into this category.

Luke did not know Jesus. He was too young and Revelation was not the last book written. Only 2 Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.
 
Last edited:

blondeambition3

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 29, 2009
3,428
1,229
FL, USA
blondeambition3.wix.com
read carefully...Luke was not an eyewitness...he was much too young

I will rephrase: "He (Luke) investigated (and wrote) the accounts of those who were eyewitnesses"

Everyone has to believe the Bible (by Faith) anymore... as all of the eyewitnesses died a long long time ago!

I always 'mean' what I say, I don't always 'say' what I mean... :laugh:

:)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread