I believe that the Bible is a document written by human hands by the inspiration of God. I believe that humans make mistakes, and humans add their emphasis. At the same time I believe that the Bible is the true word of God. I believe that the books not included by the Council of Nicea hold value as other looks at the picture. However, some of these books I believe put forth a religious viewpoint that is not truly Christianity.

I believe that the Nag Hamadi and Dead Sea Scrolls coroborate with large parts of Old Testament history, and that they are useful in studying the past of Christianity and Judaism. I believe that these documents can contain the message of God, but I have not read all of them in their entirety, so can not form a definite opinion on them at this time.

I believe that no matter the origin of the scrolls or origin of the Bible itself, whether completely correct or eroneous, the power of Jesus's promise is such that it does not necessarily matter. He is my Savior, and I will believe that with my whole heart and do what he commanded, which is to believe in his saving grace, and love my neighbor (ie. everyone else).

Regardless of anything else, these ancient texts provide unique windows through which we can view the past of the Christian and Jewish faith. If nothing else, these documents are historically important as they show a different side of the story than the one represented by either the Koran, Bible etc.

Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness to the flesh. From somewhere in Ecclesiastes.

Personally, I believe in all gods (because every 'god' has its roots in the Divine) and none (because all 'gods' are only fragments of the Divine). Every holy book is fundamentally true (because it speaks of someone's experience of God), just as every holy book is fundamentally a lie (because that experience is necessarily limited, partial, incomplete).

All truths are true, but there is no true Truth. In other words, mortality may imagine immortality, but cannot comprehend it. Hence the endless production of books, asking questions that can't be answered, and proposing solutions to those questions that are no more than the desire of the questioner dressed up as a theology.

I believe the other books and writings that are not included in the Bible can be looked at as like was said already...from a different point of view. But they do have issues that makes them stand out and be seperated because somethings just dont add up in them. Catholics have the Apocryphia, but other Christian Religions dont. I think they can be looked at as a different point of view, be used as in a historical context...but there are some issues in them that are the reason for them not being included with the others.

Every holy book isnt a lie. The books in the Bible fully document what needs to be told. You dont need to read about Franks life as a kid because that didnt matter...what mattered is what he did at the point in life in the book. Just because the Bible doesnt talk about the middle part of Gods life doesnt mean its incomplete. We know he was born as God on earth...we know about all that stuff and what happened as he was young. As he continued to grow...he probably worked with his family...doing what his dad did...becoming a carpenter. This part of his life wasnt important...if it was...we would know about it.

But they do have issues that makes them stand out and be seperated because somethings just dont add up in them.

Like what?  I'm not being confrontational, I'm simply trying to discover what you consider the issues to be.  Also, can it not be said that there are some things in the bible that we have today that don't 'add up'?

Every holy book is fundamentally true (because it speaks of someone's experience of God), just as every holy book is fundamentally a lie (because that experience is necessarily limited, partial, incomplete).

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!  YES YES YES!!!!!!!!  Excellent response!  That's given me a different perspecive...thanks!

I believe that the Bible is a document written by human hands by the inspiration of God. I believe that humans make mistakes, and humans add their emphasis. At the same time I believe that the Bible is the true word of God.

I'm probably reading you wrong here, but how can it be the true word of God if it was written by fallible humans? 

I think the Bible is a complete document. However, that does not mean other books have no value. As a Protestant, I do not consider some of the books that the Catholics view as divinely inspired as divinely inspired. However, they are still valuable, just like Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and other books that aren't part of God's revelation are still valuable.
However, the pseudepigraphal books (i.e. the Gnostic books) are on par with the Da Vinci Code (funnily enough, he seemed to refer to them quite much).

Like a good fable, a good religious tome has philosophies we can all live by, whether we believe the religion or not. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of world religions share some base common philosophies. I find it heartening.

Like a good fable, a good religious tome has philosophies we can all live by, whether we believe the religion or not. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of world religions share some base common philosophies. I find it heartening.

how can it be the true word of God if it was written by fallible humans?

I think the true Word of God could exist as a 'message of Truth' on the Other Side of the veil, so speak, (in the Mind of God?), and could be inspired through the veil into human minds, which are like vessels or filters, and which could write such inspired truths into a book. The end result, (our Holy Scriptures), could therefore be distorted or coloured by man's fallibilites and personal concerns, even though it's the true Word of God.

I think each of our religious Scriptures describe different parts of the Divine Picture, and when merged together, like jigsaw pieces, a great common ground can be seen, and they together expand human understanding beyond the scope of an individual religion alone.

However, they are still valuable, just like Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and other books that aren't part of God's revelation are still valuable. However, the pseudepigraphal books (i.e. the Gnostic books) are on par with the Da Vinci Code (funnily enough, he seemed to refer to them quite much).

So, you give more weight to a relatively modern book than you do to the Gospel Of Thomas, for example?  Interesting....

In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of world religions share some base common philosophies. I find it heartening.

I am aware of it, and yes, I do find it heartening.  I was reading Ecclesiastes last night (from 'The Book', not the KJV) and a lot of it read very similarly to The Tao and the Dhammapadda.

 

could be inspired through the veil into human minds, which are like vessels or filters, and which could write such inspired truths into a book. The end result, (our Holy Scriptures), could therefore be distorted or coloured by man's fallibilites and personal concerns, even though it's the true Word of God.

If that's the case, how are we to know what the real meaning behind them is?  If they are tainted with human emphasis, is it not possible that we've got some parts of it completetly wrong?  That us humans have taken the ball and run in the wrong direction with it?

 

I think each of our religious Scriptures describe different parts of the Divine Picture, and when merged together, like jigsaw pieces, a great common ground can be seen, and they together expand human understanding beyond the scope of an individual religion alone

That's what i think too, but I don't limit that scope to Christianity.  I think that each faith/religion has somehting that we can learn from it...

So, you give more weight to a relatively modern book than you do to the Gospel Of Thomas, for example? Interesting....

Well, one reason is we know that Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. The Gospel of Thomas, however, doesn't seem to have been written by the apostle as the book claims. As the Cyril of Jerusalem said: "Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples."

Besides, many things about Gnosticism do not mix well with Christianity, which is why Gnosticism isn't Christianity.

The Gospel of Thomas, however, doesn't seem to have been written by the apostle as the book claims

Ok, so lets use another example(s)...how about The Acts of John? 

Yes, there ARE many things about Gnostcisim that don't 'mix' well with Christianity, but there are also many things about Judaism that don't mix well either...but the Pentateuch is still part of the Christian bible.

I'm no "Scholar" but I honestly believe that the Bible is a book of folkore passed down through generations teaching christians life lessons through short stories. I also believe that some of the events acctually happened, but have been dramatized to make reading it fun and interesting.

I could also be full of shit, but hey...that's my take on it.

As for the Acts of John, it's pretty much the same problem, which is why too it wasn't canonized. Here's a table of the church fathers' view on the many books considered for canonization and here's a summary of how the OT and the NT were canonized.

What doesn't mix well between Judaism and Christianity though?

I'm no "Scholar" but I honestly believe that the Bible is a book of folkore passed down through generations teaching christians life lessons through short stories. I also believe that some of the events acctually happened, but have been dramatized to make reading it fun and interesting.

You don't have to be a scholar to give your opinion, Alison....and thanks for stopping by!  So, you think of it as folklore....do you believe in God?  Do you think that the bible is divine in any way?

What doesn't mix well between Judaism and Christianity though?

Well, let's start with the obvious....the messiah.  Jews don't agree that christ was the messiah.  That's kind of a big deal, don't you think?

I'm aware of which books were canonized and which weren't, which is why I asked the original question.  I wanted to find out if people think that the bible is it as far as god's word is concerned, or if they think that some of the books that were rejected by the council of Nicea or discovered long after have any truth or weight to them at all.

I have a very "East meets West" view of religion. I believe that the earth was created by a higher power and that we are all part of the natural life and death cycle. I believe that we all have a path of life which the higher power picks for us to make our souls stronger. I believe in reincarnation.

To answer your question about God, I think the term "God" seems rather finite. I think that the higher powers are infinite.

I don't really believe that the bible is "Divine" per se, but I think the lessons in it are interesting.