Did Jesus bullshit?

[candy]

I have suspected that he was a mystic who attained the siddhi powers.
It could explain what his followers thought they saw.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Look at what he said, so promising.
But in fact, millions of prayer never been answered.
How can that be true?
Literally, he meant he will answer your prayer positively but this never really happened in out lives
with accuracy of >70%.
So, did Jesus bullshit?

John 14:
12Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

The New Testament is unique, leaving God and religion aside for now, the material itself stands out in several ways from anything else written that we have from antiquity.

It is the most prevalent of ancient documents (or the various books are, they were not compiled into a collection until much later) there are more copies of this than any other ancient document.

Furthermore all of the copies that have been found are in remarkable agreement, the changes from one copy to another are often very very small.

So the fact that it exists at all is not what one would expect, papyrus is fragile yet we have copies that are known to be 1,600 or so years old and these copies are very very close to much later copies.

Now the documents claim to be true accounts of a remarkable episode of human history, the events were so remarkable that a huge effort must have been made to preserve the record.

If you had lived 2,000 years ago, had witnessed and experienced some of the events described, what would you have done? it seems reasonable to me to expect that some would have been utterly astonished and would go to great lengths to preserve the stories, there would be nothing else one could do but write these down and take steps to have them preserved and copied, there was no other way back then to preserve information.

So that's the first thing to try and understand I think, the remarkable uniqueness of the material, it is simply not to be expected, there was no organized church 1,900 years ago, no Sunday worship, no hymn singing, no rituals like Christmas or Easter, no Catholics vs Protestants, no cathedrals or bell ringing, no priests, nuns, popes, no Bible, no tithing, none of this, none of the familiar things we think of when we think if Christianity, these things came later, they did not exist when these records were first written down.

So at the time these documents were first penned the world was a very different place, the people who met and spent time with Jesus were also confused, they often could not fathom what he was speaking about.

 

[James R]

Hello Sherlock,

Welcome to sciforums.

The New Testament is unique...

All texts of any reasonable length are unique.

It is the most prevalent of ancient documents (or the various books are, they were not compiled into a collection until much later) there are more copies of this than any other ancient document.

Fortunately for the early Christians, they managed to spread their influence, such that their religion was eventually adopted by the largest and most powerful empire in the world at the time. Later European colonisation and military domination later led to widespread dissemination of Christianity. As the foundational set of texts, the priesthood and scholars considered its preservation and dissemination to be of the utmost importance.

Furthermore all of the copies that have been found are in remarkable agreement, the changes from one copy to another are often very very small.

That is truer of later copies than of earlier ones. Of course, the texts of the New Testament were selected from many available texts; some were chosen for inclusion according to the ideology of the time and others were rejected.

So the fact that it exists at all is not what one would expect, papyrus is fragile yet we have copies that are known to be 1,600 or so years old and these copies are very very close to much later copies.

The preservation of these texts was considered to be vitally important by Christians, who considered them to be their Holy Book.

Now the documents claim to be true accounts of a remarkable episode of human history, the events were so remarkable that a huge effort must have been made to preserve the record.

Yes. That is the claim.

If you had lived 2,000 years ago, had witnessed and experienced some of the events described, what would you have done? it seems reasonable to me to expect that some would have been utterly astonished and would go to great lengths to preserve the stories, there would be nothing else one could do but write these down and take steps to have them preserved and copied, there was no other way back then to preserve information.

Strange, then, that none of the 4 major gospels of Christ was written until 30 or 40 years after his death, don't you think? And that they are not independent of one another (i.e. Mark is the obvious source for some of the content in Matthew and Luke, at least).

So that's the first thing to try and understand I think, the remarkable uniqueness of the material, it is simply not to be expected, there was no organized church 1,900 years ago, no Sunday worship, no hymn singing, no rituals like Christmas or Easter, no Catholics vs Protestants, no cathedrals or bell ringing, no priests, nuns, popes, no Bible, no tithing, none of this, none of the familiar things we think of when we think if Christianity, these things came later, they did not exist when these records were first written down.

That's not quite true, if you believe your bible. Paul and his followers were travelling around proselytising like mad. Paul's own accounts suggest that there was an organised church. Certainly there was worship, and I'd be surprised if there was no commemoration of the Lord's birth or death. There was also certainly a church heirarchy of sorts, with acknowledged leaders.

So at the time these documents were first penned the world was a very different place, the people who met and spent time with Jesus were also confused, they often could not fathom what he was speaking about.

We have no way of knowing how much of what is attributed to Jesus in the New Testament was actually said or done by him. Coming back to Paul once again, it seems that Paul had his own ideas of how the nascent Church should operate, which were dutifully added to the Christian canon when the choice was made of texts to include in the New Testament.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks for the responses, mine are in red below:

Hello Sherlock,

Welcome to sciforums.

All texts of any reasonable length are unique.

I'm referring to their number, the degree to which it was propagated, this is unique.

Fortunately for the early Christians, they managed to spread their influence, such that their religion was eventually adopted by the largest and most powerful empire in the world at the time.

Constantine did not officially stop, outlaw, persecution of Christians until after 300 AD, some 250 years after Christ. In Acts we read of the beginning of that persecution and there are numerous extra canonical sources that record persecution. So in fact we have a persecuted minority that went to great lengths to propagate the stories. These men faced execution and torture yet persisted in propagating these stories, for example Polycarp.

Later European colonization and military domination later led to widespread dissemination of Christianity. As the foundational set of texts, the priesthood and scholars considered its preservation and dissemination to be of the utmost importance.

The gospels and epistles already existed by that time though, had already been propagated, again during almost 300 years of persecution, torture and execution.

That is truer of later copies than of earlier ones. Of course, the texts of the New Testament were selected from many available texts; some were chosen for inclusion according to the ideology of the time and others were rejected.

What "earlier" variants are you alluding to? The canonization was selective but occurred in the 5th century, these are huge timescales.

The preservation of these texts was considered to be vitally important by Christians, who considered them to be their Holy Book.

No, there was no "Holy Book" until at least 360 AD, the acts of preservation and copying were done initially by small groups who were persecuted sometimes tortured and executed, they were persecuted by established Jewish orthodoxy (see Acts) as well as secular pagan society.

Yes. That is the claim.

Strange, then, that none of the 4 major gospels of Christ was written until 30 or 40 years after his death, don't you think? And that they are not independent of one another (i.e. Mark is the obvious source for some of the content in Matthew and Luke, at least).

How did you establish when the first written records were written?

That's not quite true, if you believe your bible. Paul and his followers were travelling around proselytising like mad. Paul's own accounts suggest that there was an organised church. Certainly there was worship, and I'd be surprised if there was no commemoration of the Lord's birth or death. There was also certainly a church heirarchy of sorts, with acknowledged leaders.

Of course they were, they had witnessed incredible events, so incredible that they were prepared to go to extreme lengths to prevent the stories fading into obscurity, the prevalence of the earliest copies is evidence that something far beyond a mere made up story could account for.

Is there any evidence that people commemorated Jesus's birth? Easter? Christmas etc until many centuries later?

We have no way of knowing how much of what is attributed to Jesus in the New Testament was actually said or done by him. Coming back to Paul once again, it seems that Paul had his own ideas of how the nascent Church should operate, which were dutifully added to the Christian canon when the choice was made of texts to include in the New Testament.

We have no idea if Spartacus lived, if he did what is attributed to him, all documents from antiquity are subject to the same skepticism or should be.

Consider this, IF the events described in the Gospels did occur then what would we expect to find two thousand years later? IF these events did take place then what would you have done had you seen these with your own eyes? what could you have done back at that time?

Would you do absolutely nothing? or would you accept the magnitude of what you witnessed and be determined to tell others?

 

[James R]

Sherlock:

Thanks for the responses, mine are in red below

I'd suggest that you do not include your responses within a quote. You can use multiple [quote][/quote] tags to separate things out. Long quotes get compacted when they are are viewed, so you risk having stuff missed by the person you're addressing your response to.

Regarding your query about when the gospels were written, most reputable Christian scholars agree that all of them were written 30-40 years after Jesus's death. You can look it up if you doubt me.

Consider this, IF the events described in the Gospels did occur then what would we expect to find two thousand years later? IF these events did take place then what would you have done had you seen these with your own eyes? what could you have done back at that time?

At that time, chances are good that I would have been illiterate. I guess I would have told my friends and family about what I saw with my own eyes. I mean, if the miracles and stuff are real - if the resurrection is real - then it's an important message to try to spread.

On the other hand, think about it. If you're Almighty God, sending your son to save all of humanity from sin, couldn't you choose a more reliable method for propagating the Good News than leaving it up to word of mouth and anecdote? If you're the omnipotent ruler of the universe and you have a vitally important message for your Creation, why can't you make it clear and unambiguously obvious to all?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock:

I'd suggest that you do not include your responses within a quote. You can use multiple [quote][/quote] tags to separate things out. Long quotes get compacted when they are are viewed, so you risk having stuff missed by the person you're addressing your response to.

Very well.

Regarding your query about when the gospels were written, most reputable Christian scholars agree that all of them were written 30-40 years after Jesus's death. You can look it up if you doubt me.

There's evidence they were written no later than around 70AD but you have no idea if there were written records created within days of the crucifixion, we have no idea. These are now lost but we do not know if there were very early written accounts that are long since lost.

At that time, chances are good that I would have been illiterate. I guess I would have told my friends and family about what I saw with my own eyes. I mean, if the miracles and stuff are real - if the resurrection is real - then it's an important message to try to spread.

I agree.

On the other hand, think about it. If you're Almighty God, sending your son to save all of humanity from sin, couldn't you choose a more reliable method for propagating the Good News than leaving it up to word of mouth and anecdote? If you're the omnipotent ruler of the universe and you have a vitally important message for your Creation, why can't you make it clear and unambiguously obvious to all?

But unless you know the goal you cannot judge the methods. Jesus himself said of his parables that it was intended to hide the truth not reveal it, it was revealed selectively and likely this is still the case.

 

[Sarkus]

There's evidence they were written no later than around 70AD but you have no idea if there were written records created within days of the crucifixion, we have no idea. These are now lost but we do not know if there were very early written accounts that are long since lost.

There's also evidence, and a weight of scholarly opinion, that they were written between 68-110 AD.
But hey, we also do not know for sure that the Gospels weren't written by aliens from a distant galaxy, or from Alpha Centauri. Or if there were countless different stories written within days of a crucifixion that told contradictory information, and only those fitting a subsequent agenda were adopted.
There is so much we don't know that to speculate, or to even raise the notion of what isn't known is a pointless exercise in irrelevancy.

So let's stick to what we do know, shall we?

But unless you know the goal you cannot judge the methods. Jesus himself said of his parables that it was intended to hide the truth not reveal it, it was revealed selectively and likely this is still the case.

Isn't that a rather hypocritical position for you to take? You're effectively discounting another person's view because they don't know the goal, while pushing your own view while not knowing the goal? Or are you suggesting you do know the goal??

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's also evidence, and a weight of scholarly opinion, that they were written between 68-110 AD.

Yes but we can't say that there were no earlier texts, that the texts we do have did not have their roots in some earlier text.

But hey, we also do not know for sure that the Gospels weren't written by aliens from a distant galaxy, or from Alpha Centauri.

Yes because such a thing isn't really plausible.

Or if there were countless different stories written within days of a crucifixion that told contradictory information, and only those fitting a subsequent agenda were adopted.
There is so much we don't know that to speculate, or to even raise the notion of what isn't known is a pointless exercise in irrelevancy.

My point is that we cannot assume that the earliest texts we've found were the earliest texts that existed, there's nothing unreasonable about pointing this out.

So let's stick to what we do know, shall we?

Sure, and if you do know there were no earlier texts then say so.

Isn't that a rather hypocritical position for you to take? You're effectively discounting another person's view because they don't know the goal, while pushing your own view while not knowing the goal? Or are you suggesting you do know the goal??

What view have I "pushed"?

 

[Sarkus]

Yes but we can't say that there were no earlier texts, that the texts we do have did not have their roots in some earlier text.

Whether in some earlier text or even just oral tradition is rather irrelevant. All we have are the gospels themselves, not those other possible sources.

My point is that we cannot assume that the earliest texts we've found were the earliest texts that existed, there's nothing unreasonable about pointing this out.

Nothing unreasonable. Just irrelevant. Do you have them? Are you claiming that the gospels are an accurate rewrite of those earlier texts? Are you claiming that the gospels should be taken as more accurate than we might otherwise think because they might have been based on earlier texts, texts which noone has seen, and which noone knows the content of, or even if they exist?

Sure, and if you do know there were no earlier texts then say so.

I don't know that there were or weren't, and nor do you. You are assuming that there were, however. We don't know what the purpose, or intent of the authors were for sure...
"...but today there is a large consensus that the author of Mark was not intending to write history.[72] Mark preserves memories of real people (including the disciples), places and circumstances, but it is based on previously existing traditions which have been selected and arranged by the author to express his understanding of the significance of Jesus." - from Wiki
Mark plus another document (the "Q-document") were then the main sources for Matthew and Luke, and John was written last, based on the previous three.

What view have I "pushed"?

That the Gospels are to be taken as accurate records of events.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Whether in some earlier text or even just oral tradition is rather irrelevant. All we have are the gospels themselves, not those other possible sources.

Yes.

Nothing unreasonable. Just irrelevant. Do you have them? Are you claiming that the gospels are an accurate rewrite of those earlier texts?

No, I've made no such claim.

Are you claiming that the gospels should be taken as more accurate than we might otherwise think because they might have been based on earlier texts, texts which noone has seen, and which noone knows the content of, or even if they exist?

Yes, I am claiming that to cast doubt on their veracity because they may have been penned around 70 AD some 40 years after the crucifixion assumes there were no intermediate records.

I don't know that there were or weren't, and nor do you. You are assuming that there were, however. We don't know what the purpose, or intent of the authors were for sure...

No I too have no idea, but the significance attached to the gospels being penned 40 or 50 years after the events is only a significance if there were no prior texts.

"...but today there is a large consensus that the author of Mark was not intending to write history.[72] Mark preserves memories of real people (including the disciples), places and circumstances, but it is based on previously existing traditions which have been selected and arranged by the author to express his understanding of the significance of Jesus." - from Wiki

Well right there it refers to "previously existing traditions" which could very well have been written.

Mark plus another document (the "Q-document") were then the main sources for Matthew and Luke, and John was written last, based on the previous three.

That the Gospels are to be taken as accurate records of events.

Why should they not be? We have more information about Jesus than we do about Spartacus.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Also consider (emphasis mine)

The New Testament preserves signs of these oral traditions and early documents...

...and the dedicatory preface of Luke refers to previous written accounts of the life of Jesus...

mentioned in this article.

Luke begins (emphasis mine)

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word".

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I am claiming that to cast doubt on their veracity because they may have been penned around 70 AD some 40 years after the crucifixion assumes there were no intermediate records.

No it doesn't. It assumes that they were penned between 70-110 AD, based on earlier writings, oral history, or based on nothing at all. That's all. You, however, are trying to claim that we should treat them as accurate because they were based on earlier writings/traditions/oral histories... the content of which you know nothing about beyond what may have been used in the gospels.

No I too have no idea, but the significance attached to the gospels being penned 40 or 50 years after the events is only a significance if there were no prior texts.

Not at all, it also speaks to possible agenda of why they were written, and the story they wanted to tell. In other words, whether based on previous writings or not, it speaks to a period of time that was formative in the early church, when the "message" was still being established and argued over. The length of time between the actual events and the writing introduces a period when such agendas and interpretations inform the writing, beyond being a straight copying of the original text.

Well right there it refers to "previously existing traditions" which could very well have been written.

Of course. That doesn't mean that the gospels are therefore accurate, though, or any more accurate than we can establish through other means. Being based on other writings doesn't itself make something accurate; it makes something second-hand, and in the absence of that previous writing, it's accuracy can only be established by what else exists and is known about.

Why should they not be? We have more information about Jesus than we do about Spartacus.

Sure, and noone claims to know the truth about Spartacus' life and teachings. As to why they should not be... noone is saying that they are not accurate, only that being based on earlier writings does not in and of itself make them accurate, and does not mean that something written 40 years after the event should be taken as being written earlier than that (and thus implied to be more accurate). If we had those earlier writings then we could compare the Gospels to those writings, and also look at the accuracy and reliability of those earlier writings. But we don't.
The accuracy and reliability of the Gospels should only be considered based on what is contained in those Gospels, not on what we don't know about writings or oral histories that we otherwise have no record of. That doesn't mean we can therefore dismiss them as inaccurate for being written 40 years after the event.
Treat them as accurate or reliable based on comparison to what else we know about the characters, the places, etc.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Look at what he said, so promising.
But in fact, millions of prayer never been answered.
How can that be true?
Literally, he meant he will answer your prayer positively but this never really happened in out lives
with accuracy of >70%.
So, did Jesus bullshit?

John 14:
12Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

I believe I have found the secret to the power of prayer. For Christianity the way prayer works is that if you pray for something you want or need God will answer your prayer if it fits the following criteria....

1) The prayer is not too selfish.
2. You are putting in the proper work to make having that prayer answered realistic.
3. You are not praying to harm others.
4) You do not pray for things that violate the will of God.
5) You are not being extremely sinful and thus deserving God's wrath.
.
Here are a few examples to illustrate my point.

Prayer #1: Dear heavenly father, please give me the promotion at my job I have been asking my boss for. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.
Prayer#2: Dear heavenly father, I want to be rich. Please find a way to make me a billionaire before the end of the year. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.
Prayer #3: Dear heavenly father, my wife cheated on me and is filing for a divorce that will lead to loss of money and my custody of our children. Please do something to her to put a stop to this madness. Can you have it arraigned that she is hit by a car or struck by lightning? In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.
Prayer #4: Dear heavenly father, I am tired of seeing so much pain and suffering in the world. Can you please bring world peace and end world hunger?
Prayer #5: Dear heavenly father, I am tired of seeing so much violence in the world. Please grant me the powers of Superman and Professor X so I can be a superhero and fight crime. I only want to make a greater difference in the world. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

Now here you have 5 prayers that are similar to some prayers people have made in their lifetime. The first prayer requires you to put in good work to get the opportunity to get a promotion. If you get the promotion God answered your prayer. If you don't get it then he didn't. If he doesn't give it to you why not? Are you putting in good work to deserve the position? Do you have competition among your co-workers that are just as hard-working and faithful as you are? Many coaches ask their athletes to pray for their team to win before a big game and many athletes praise God when they win. But what if the opposing team or your opponent in a contest is a Christian and worked just as hard as you did? If they win does that mean that God does not exist or doesn't value you as a faithful servant deserving of an Earthly reward? They say the lord works in mysterious ways.

Here is an idea for Christians. Make a journal and write down your prayers. How many times do you pray? What do you pray for? How fast do you want or expect certain prayers to be answered? You might want to be a billionaire and you might work hard but if you put a time limit on how fast you expect that to happen to you God might see that as you testing him in a way he finds to be unacceptable (Deuteronomy 6:16).

Praying to God to have someone you have a grudge against seriously injured or killed is vengeful. The Bible says that vengeance belongs to God (Deuteronomy 32:35). Jesus specifically says to love your enemies and forgive them for their wicked ways (Matthew 5:43-45). If people have done wrong by you and you find out later that something bad happened to them then maybe God is looking out for you after all.

There is indeed a lot of pain, suffering and death in the world. When is it going to end? According to the Bible Jesus will return to Earth and establish the Millennial Kingdom during the Second Coming
(Matthew 24:36). Until then Christians are supposed to be faithful. They are to pray for good fortune in their lives, work hard, set a good example for others, obey the laws of their nation and if they accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior their soul will ascend into heaven when they die.

Those that are still alive on Earth shortly before the Second Coming will witness the rise of the anti-Christ and those that remain faithful will see Jesus descend from the clouds with their own eyes.

That is the story of the Bible anyway. People are free to believe what they want to believe and practice other religions or not believe in anything at all. I recently saw the movie Smile (2022) for Halloween. The story is about a woman who is a therapist. One of her patients commits suicide in front of her and it is revealed over the course of the movie that her patient was possessed by a demon who terrorized her throughout the movie in order to ruin her life. Nobody can see the demon but her and many people start thinking she has simply lost her mind. She does her research and interviews others who have had trouble with this same demon.

I wondered what she did to deserve this after watching the movie and I came to the realization that she violated the 5th commandment. When she was 10 years old she saw her mother, who had overdosed on drugs, lying in bed. Her mother asked her to call 911 to save her. She closed the door on her and let her die. She felt guilt for doing that and this is what led to her dedicating her life to help the mentally ill. Later in the movie she tells her mother's spirit that she did not help her because she was afraid of her. But because she did not honor her mother the demon took advantage of that guilt and made her one of his many victims. This is how spirituality works.

Another good example is the movie American Pie where the main character and his friends make a pact to lose their virginity before prom. The main character, Jim, gets approached by Nadia, a hot girl he has a crush on. She asks to be his study partner and tell her she needs to change at his house in his bedroom. One of his friends comes up with the idea to monitor her through his webcam and watch her change her clothes (voyeurism). Jim agrees to do it and while they are watching his friends encourage him to go back to the house and seduce her for sex. Before he enters the room Jim prays to go to, "Let this be it." Nadia gets upset at him for walking in on her and demands that he perform a striptease. They almost have sex but Jim gets too excited, premature ejaculates not once but twice and she decides to leave. Jim accidently addressed the email for the broadcast not only to his friends but to the entire school who see his performance and make fun of him when he comes back to school. His prayer was not answered because of his sexually immoral behavior.

The Bible does teach that through faith you can perform miracles. Has anyone here ever witnessed anything they consider to be a miracle or prayed for one in a time where they really needed it? I have done some research on paranormal activity and found some interesting stories.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I believe I have found the secret to the power of prayer. For Christianity the way prayer works is that if you pray for something you want or need God will answer your prayer if it fits the following criteria....

Based on you’r criteria… it coud explain why ive had a happy easy satisfyin life an have no fear that i will wind up in hell.!!!

1) The prayer is not too selfish.

I’m sure i have never made a too selfish prayer.!!!

2. You are putting in the proper work to make having that prayer answered realistic.

I have put in the proper amount of work for everthang i have received.!!!

3. You are not praying to harm others.

Never have i ever prayed for harm on anybody.!!!

4) You do not pray for things that violate the will of God.

I have never never done that.!!!

5) You are not being extremely sinful and thus deserving God's wrath.

I have never sined an have no plans to.!!!

 

[sideshowbob]

I have never sined an have no plans to.!!!

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[geordief]

Two Corinthians :It was a perfect phone call.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

NACA 1.3 Truths: Sin is a hoax.!!!

 

[C C]

I believe strongly, but He did not care for me.
He never proved himself to me even though I pray and cry.

Deities are noted for testing groupies who they suspect of having little deep conviction or allegiance to begin with (i.e., may be an easily disaffected fan).

So having the vending machine repeatedly renege on dropping the selected treats after the coins are dropped in (prayer) is just a way of gradually drawing out and exposing that inner, shallow devotee or renegade. (Who would really rather be in Black Sabbath's camp rocking to "Children of the Grave", or something.)

The Pretty Reckless: "Witches Burn"

 

[geordief]

You’re an atheist

That is God's special trick.He sends Angel's who are atheists.

Devilish cunning.God is nobody's fool.

For his next trick he has sent his greatest sinner the Big Don to show us the TRUE WAY (Truth Social ,it is a sign)

 

[billvon]

Furthermore all of the copies that have been found are in remarkable agreement, the changes from one copy to another are often very very small.

Well, to be fair, that's because the early Church threw out the texts that disagree. For example, there's a good chance you never even heard about the Books of Clement, the Book of Wisdom, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Shepherd of Hermas. Those were decreed "not canon" and rejected.