Should I be rebaptised?

[Lady Crosstalk]

As usual - your aberrant doctrines are base on one of the MAJOR aberrant doctrines o the Protestant Revolt:
SOLA SCRIPTURA

NOWHERE does the Bible state that everything ewe believe and practice must be explicitly taught on the pages of Scripture. his is a Protestant invention - NOT a Biblical truth.

HOWEVER - the implicit teaching on Infant Baptism is absolutely in Scripture:
- We see the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of Cornelius being baptized based on HIS faith (Acts 10:47-48).
- We see the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of the Philippian Jailer being baptized based on HIS faith (Acts 16:31-34).
- We see the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of Stephanas being baptized (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15).
Gee, I hate to be the one to break this to you but "Entire Households" had people of EVERY age living in them - from infants to the very old.

In Acts 2:39, Peter said about Baptismal regeneration, "The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Now for some actual historical proof of the APOSTOLIC Tradition handed down to the Early Church regarding Infant Baptism:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of INFANTS: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

Roman Catholic boiler plate. Too bad that the Roman "church" cares much more for the opinion of men than they do about the opinion of God as inspired by His Spirit in the Bible. How do you know that "his entire household" didn't merely mean "all in his household who are believers"? That is the pattern of the NT--believer's baptism. Show me any case where an individual baby or young child was baptized and I might buy your dogma. But then, you can't show me from the Bible because the only thing it says about Jesus' and young children in the gospels is that He BLESSED them. If they were supposed to be baptized, don't you think that He would have ordered His disciples to do so? They were baptizing those who had repented of their sins and turned to God in faith. Babies can't repent (because they do not sin) don't know anything about God and they should not be baptized.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Roman Catholic boiler plate. Too bad that the Roman "church" cares much more for the opinion of men than they do about the opinion of God as inspired by His Spirit in the Bible. How do you know that "his entire household" didn't merely mean "all in his household who are believers"? That is the pattern of the NT--believer's baptism. Show me any case where an individual baby or young child was baptized and I might buy your dogma. But then, you can't show me from the Bible because the only thing it says about Jesus' and young children in the gospels is that He BLESSED them. If they were supposed to be baptized, don't you think that He would have ordered His disciples to do so? They were baptizing those who had repented of their sins and turned to God in faith. Babies can't repent (because they do not sin) don't know anything about God and they should not be baptized.

An you are simply another Protestant operating from the false premise of Sola Scriptura.

Tell you what - I'll show YOU where the Bible talks about Infant Baptism when YOU shoe me where it mentions the "Trinity". Maybe you can show me where it explicitly mentions the "Incarnation".

The Trinity and Incarnation are 2 of the most BASIC tenets of the Christian faith - yet they are NOT mentioned in Scripture. Neither is "Bible", for that matter. WHY is that??

Once again, however - in Acts 2:39, Peter said about Baptismal regeneration, "The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Can you tell me what the motive of the Early Church was for stating explicitly that Infant Baptism was a Sacred Tradition handed down to them by the Apostles?
In other words - why would they simply make this up? These people had bigger fish to fry. they were being hunted down and butchered by the Romans. Making up little lies about things like baptizing babies and consuming the Body and Blood of Christ (the Eucharist) would have been small potatoes if they weren't REAL Traditions.

This has NEVER been addressed here . . .

PS - Can you tell me the difference between "Catholic Church" and "Roman" Catholic Church or "Roman Church"??

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

An you are simply another Protestant operating from the false premise of Sola Scriptura.

If we don't have Scripture as the basis of faith and practice, then we have merely the opinions of men. I will not argue this with you because Roman Catholics are invariably blinded by and brainwashed by Roman dogma from an early age. It is very difficult to get a Roman Catholic who is steeped in Roman Catholicism (as you obviously are) to see the truth.

Tell you what - I'll show YOU where the Bible talks about Infant Baptism when YOU shoe me where it mentions the "Trinity". Maybe you can show me where it explicitly mentions the "Incarnation".

You CAN'T show me infant baptism in the Bible because it doesn't exist. Jesus Himself, tells His followers to "...go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) I haven't discipled any babies recently--have you? The Trinity is implied throughout the NT. When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke from heaven, commending His Son and the Holy Spirit descended on Him. Even though the word Trinity does not appear, it is, as you said, a very basic doctrine which all Christians believe. Theological concepts are NOT the same thing as Christian practice of the faith.

The Trinity and Incarnation are 2 of the most BASIC tenets of the Christian faith - yet they are NOT mentioned in Scripture. Neither is "Bible", for that matter. WHY is that??

Because presumably, God wanted to make the faith accessible through His word printed in the language of the believer and not in some priestly theological language. Why is it that the Roman "church" vehemently opposed the idea that parishioners would be permitted to read the Scriptures for themselves? Willliam Tyndale was murdered at the behest of the Roman "church" for merely providing the Scriptures in the language of his people (English). Martin Luther barely escaped being burned at the stake (only because he was under the protection of Frederick the Elector). For that matter, where in the New Testament does it give a church the right to execute a "heretic"? Answer me those questions without the usual RCC excuse-making and I might be willing to engage with you further.

Once again, however - in Acts 2:39, Peter said about Baptismal regeneration, "The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Says nothing about the age of the child.

Can you tell me what the motive of the Early Church was for stating explicitly that Infant Baptism was a Sacred Tradition handed down to them by the Apostles?
In other words - why would they simply make this up? These people had bigger fish to fry. they were being hunted down and butchered by the Romans. Making up little lies about things like baptizing babies and consuming the Body and Blood of Christ (the Eucharist) would have been small potatoes if they weren't REAL Traditions. This has NEVER been addressed here . . .

An attempt to be religious? Just a guess. The Eastern Church has never agreed with the Roman Church on the idea that baptism eliminates "Original Sin"--yet they perform infant baptism. One wonders what for, if it is not to eliminate sin? The fact remains that, when Jesus was speaking to the believing thief on the cross, He said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise". Baptism was not mentioned as a requirement for salvation.

p.s. Your knowledge of Church history could use a brushing up.

 

[Marymog]

If we don't have Scripture as the basis of faith and practice, then we have merely the opinions of men.

Hello,

What constituted Scripture (the Bible) was not agreed upon for the first 300 years of Christianity. All the various churches disagreed on what was scripture. Some said Clement, Gospel of Thomas, Shepard of Hermes etc were Scripture and included them in their Sunday scriptural readings; others said they didn't belong.

What did the first 300 years of Christians do to find their "basis of faith and practice" when there was no defined Scripture (table of contents)?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

You CAN'T show me infant baptism in the Bible because it doesn't exist. Jesus Himself, tells His followers to "...go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) I haven't discipled any babies recently--have you?

Hello,

Catholics agree with you: "...go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

You are adding to Scripture when you say "...go and make disciples of all peoples, except infants, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Are infants "people"?

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” You say don't let the children come to him.


Mary

 

[Marymog]

Says nothing about the age of the child.

EXACTLY.....It says NOTHING about the age of the child sooooooo why are you adding to scripture and saying it does say something about the age of the child? Are not some children infants?????

YOU are preventing infants from being baptized....Not Scripture!

Mary

PS....who taught you your belief about baptism? Are you self taught?

 

[BreadOfLife]

If we don't have Scripture as the basis of faith and practice, then we have merely the opinions of men. I will not argue this with you because Roman Catholics are invariably blinded by and brainwashed by Roman dogma from an early age. It is very difficult to get a Roman Catholic who is steeped in Roman Catholicism (as you obviously are) to see the truth.

You CAN'T show me infant baptism in the Bible because it doesn't exist. Jesus Himself, tells His followers to "...go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) I haven't discipled any babies recently--have you? The Trinity is implied throughout the NT. When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke from heaven, commending His Son and the Holy Spirit descended on Him. Even though the word Trinity does not appear, it is, as you said, a very basic doctrine which all Christians believe. Theological concepts are NOT the same thing as Christian practice of the faith.

Because presumably, God wanted to make the faith accessible through His word printed in the language of the believer and not in some priestly theological language. Why is it that the Roman "church" vehemently opposed the idea that parishioners would be permitted to read the Scriptures for themselves? Willliam Tyndale was murdered at the behest of the Roman "church" for merely providing the Scriptures in the language of his people (English). Martin Luther barely escaped being burned at the stake (only because he was under the protection of Frederick the Elector). For that matter, where in the New Testament does it give a church the right to execute a "heretic"? Answer me those questions without the usual RCC excuse-making and I might be willing to engage with you further.

Says nothing about the age of the child.

An attempt to be religious? Just a guess. The Eastern Church has never agreed with the Roman Church on the idea that baptism eliminates "Original Sin"--yet they perform infant baptism. One wonders what for, if it is not to eliminate sin? The fact remains that, when Jesus was speaking to the believing thief on the cross, He said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise". Baptism was not mentioned as a requirement for salvation.

When you read the writings of the Early Church - you realize that Infant Baptism was "a very basic doctrine which all Christians believe" - as YOU put it. In fact the ONLY objections to Infant Baptism in the Early Church was about WHEN to baptize the infant. 30 days after birth? 8 days after birth? Immediately after birth??

As for children being Baptized in Scripture (Acts 2:39) - in your OWN words: "Says nothing about the age of the child."
You're absolutely right. There is NO age restriction on Baptism in Scripture.

Just as 8-day-old boys were circumcised end entered the Old Covenant by the faith of their parents - Newborns are BAPTIZED and they enter the NEW Covenant by the faith of their parents.

As to the Thief on the Cross - he couldn't get baptized. He was a little "busy" at the time but God allows for exceptions. This is what is called "Baptism of Desire". He had NO WAY of getting baptized after coming to faith but before he died.

A little advice: NEVER base your doctrines on the exception - but the norm . . .

Finally - you NEVER gave me a motive for the Early Church Fathers, who were being hunted and murdered for their beliefs - as to why they would invent LIES about Infant Baptism. What could they POSSIBLY gain by doing this??

We can discuss your skewed version of Tyndale on another thread. No sense in hijacking this topic. Needless to say, it was NOT for simply translating the Scriptures into English . . .


PS - You NEVER told me the difference between the "Catholic Church" and "Roman" Catholic Church (RCC) or "Roman Church". Can I just assume you're ignorant of that as well??

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Hello,

What constituted Scripture (the Bible) was not agreed upon for the first 300 years of Christianity.

Um--No. The canon was formalized in the fourth century BUT the New Testament gospels were generally accepted from the time that they were written down--within 40 years of the events of the Resurrection. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was, in turn, a disciple of the Apostle John and wrote much of his work in the 200s. Irenaeus quoted very long passages from the New Testament as well as the Septuagint (the Old Testament Scriptures translated to Greek) in his writings. The Epistles to the churches are, for all intents and purposes date from the same period as the gospels. The Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in a Greek Monastery in the 19th century) dates from the late 200s into the early 300s is nearly identical to the New Testament which we use today. That argument falls flat.

All the various churches disagreed on what was scripture. Some said Clement, Gospel of Thomas, Shepard of Hermes etc were Scripture and included them in their Sunday scriptural readings; others said they didn't belong.

There were very sound reasons for excluding them--too long to go into here in this post.

What did the first 300 years of Christians do to find their "basis of faith and practice" when there was no defined Scripture (table of contents)?

As you can see from the above, it is RCC propaganda that there were no Scriptures until 300+AD.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Hello,

Catholics agree with you: "...go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." You are adding to Scripture when you say "...go and make disciples of all peoples, except infants, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Are infants "people"?

How does one "disciple" an infant?

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” You say don't let the children come to him.

A ridiculous assertion and a lie to boot. I never said that children should not be instructed as soon as they are able to understand. We don't put very young children and babies to reading before than can speak, do we? One more insult/lie and I will no longer be responding to you.

 

[Marymog]

Um--No. The canon was formalized in the fourth century BUT the New Testament gospels were generally accepted from the time that they were written down--within 40 years of the events of the Resurrection. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was, in turn, a disciple of the Apostle John and wrote much of his work in the 200s. Irenaeus quoted very long passages from the New Testament as well as the Septuagint (the Old Testament Scriptures translated to Greek) in his writings. The Epistles to the churches are, for all intents and purposes date from the same period as the gospels. The Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in a Greek Monastery in the 19th century) dates from the late 200s into the early 300s is nearly identical to the New Testament which we use today. That argument falls flat.

There were very sound reasons for excluding them--too long to go into here in this post.

As you can see from the above, it is RCC propaganda that there were no Scriptures until 300+AD.

Hurrah....we agree....the New Testament gospels were generally accepted from the time that they were written down. As I previously stated, and you seem to agree with me on, there was some disagreement on what was to be included in the NT. Either they completely agreed on what was Scripture or they didn't. If they GENERALLY accepted (your words) what was Scripture then they didn't completely agree. But yet you make it sound like they did completely agree....very confusing. Can you clarify? Why was there a debate about excluding some of them if the already agreed on what scripture was? Your saying two different things....

So I ask you again: What did the first 300 years of Christians do to find their "basis of faith and practice" when there was no defined Scripture (table of contents) since they didn't agree on what Scripture was?

I don't see how it is RCC propaganda when you are agreeing with the RCC. They didn't agree to what was to be Scripture until the 4th century. We have historical writings as evidence this is true. Irenaeus accepted Clement 1 and Shepard of Hermas sooooo you chose the wrong person to make your point.

Mary

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

EXACTLY.....It says NOTHING about the age of the child sooooooo why are you adding to scripture and saying it does say something about the age of the child? Are not some children infants?????

YOU are preventing infants from being baptized....Not Scripture!

Mary

PS....who taught you your belief about baptism? Are you self taught?

Of course children are people--that was not the question. I REPEAT--how does one go about making a disciple of an infant?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Um--No. The canon was formalized in the fourth century BUT the New Testament gospels were generally accepted from the time that they were written down--within 40 years of the events of the Resurrection. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was, in turn, a disciple of the Apostle John and wrote much of his work in the 200s. Irenaeus quoted very long passages from the New Testament as well as the Septuagint (the Old Testament Scriptures translated to Greek) in his writings. The Epistles to the churches are, for all intents and purposes date from the same period as the gospels. The Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in a Greek Monastery in the 19th century) dates from the late 200s into the early 300s is nearly identical to the New Testament which we use today. That argument falls flat.
There were very sound reasons for excluding them--too long to go into here in this post.

As you can see from the above, it is RCC propaganda that there were no Scriptures until 300+AD.

Time for a history lesson . . .

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

The fact is that there were MANY Books that were considered "inspired" before the Church declared the Canon officially. There were also MANY different "Canons" floating around.

It took the Church, with it's God-given Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, !8:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23) and its guarantees from Christ that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15) to declare the Canon of Scripture that YOU still adhere to today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course children are people--that was not the question. I REPEAT--how does one go about making a disciple of an infant?

How does one "join" a Covenant at 8 days old by having his foreskin cut off??
Is it HIS decision - or his Parents'??

 

[Marymog]

How does one "disciple" an infant?

A ridiculous assertion and a lie to boot. I never said that children should not be instructed as soon as they are able to understand. We don't put very young children and babies to reading before than can speak, do we? One more insult/lie and I will no longer be responding to you.

How does one disciple a illiterate person?

How does one deny that an infant is not a person?

How does one add to scripture words that are not there???

Why are you denying that infants should not be brought to Jesus when He said bring them to me?

You do know that it is the parents responsibility to raise children in their faith. You don't wait until they are at the age of reason and then say sooooo do you want to be an atheist, Jew, Christian, Muslim etc etc.??? We raise them from birth into the faith just like we have done since the beginning of the Jewish faith. It is a family affair. Scripture says that FAMILIES were baptized. Are there no infants in families??? Are you going to deny that ALSO???

If you are not saying don't let the children (infants) come to Him then what are you saying when you say they shouldn't be baptized? Don't we have to go to Him to be baptized?

Mary

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Hurrah....we agree....the New Testament gospels were generally accepted from the time that they were written down. As I previously stated, and you seem to agree with me on, there was some disagreement on what was to be included in the NT. Either they completely agreed on what was Scripture or they didn't. If they GENERALLY accepted (your words) what was Scripture then they didn't completely agree. But yet you make it sound like they did completely agree....very confusing. Can you clarify? Why was there a debate about excluding some of them if the already agreed on what scripture was? Your saying two different things....

So I ask you again: What did the first 300 years of Christians do to find their "basis of faith and practice" when there was no defined Scripture (table of contents) since they didn't agree on what Scripture was?

I don't see how it is RCC propaganda when you are agreeing with the RCC. They didn't agree to what was to be Scripture until the 4th century. We have historical writings as evidence this is true. Irenaeus accepted Clement 1 and Shepard of Hermas sooooo you chose the wrong person to make your point.

Mary

There were heresies in the fledgling churches from Day One (read the Letters to the Seven Churches in the Book of Revelation). 1) Not every person in every church accepted the teachings of the Apostles (have you read the Epistles?). 2)There was no disagreement as to what was Scripture--it was more the interpretation of the Scriptures that was the problem. That is why the Apostle John in 1 John reminded the people that they had the Holy Spirit to lead them to the truth and needed no one to teach them. (1 John 2:27) Funny how the RCC never teaches that particular passage.

 

[Marymog]

Of course children are people--that was not the question. I REPEAT--how does one go about making a disciple of an infant?

The parents goes about making an infant a disciple by baptizing them into the NT covenant. They then bring them up into the faith as they begin to understand what covenant they were BORN into.

How does one DENY an infant from this covenant? Why are you adding to scripture and saying it does deny infant baptism when we already agree it says NOTHING about the age of the child?

 

[BreadOfLife]

There were heresies in the fledgling churches from Day One (read the Letters to the Seven Churches in the Book of Revelation). 1) Not every person in every church accepted the teachings of the Apostles (have you read the Epistles?). 2)There was no disagreement as to what was Scripture--it was more the interpretation of the Scriptures that was the problem. That is why the Apostle John in 1 John reminded the people that they had the Holy Spirit to lead them to the truth and needed no one to teach them. (1 John 2:27) Funny how the RCC never teaches that particular passage.

On what do you base your lie above (in RED)??
This is a patently FALSE statement. There were MANY Books that were considered to be inspired Scripture before the Canon was officially decided on.

The Protoevangelium of James, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistles of Barnabas, The Gospel of Peter, etc. Where do YOU get off claiming that they were NOT considered inspired Scripture when HISTORY tells us they were??

 

[Marymog]

There were heresies in the fledgling churches from Day One (read the Letters to the Seven Churches in the Book of Revelation). 1) Not every person in every church accepted the teachings of the Apostles (have you read the Epistles?). 2)There was no disagreement as to what was Scripture--it was more the interpretation of the Scriptures that was the problem. That is why the Apostle John in 1 John reminded the people that they had the Holy Spirit to lead them to the truth and needed no one to teach them. (1 John 2:27) Funny how the RCC never teaches that particular passage.

You said they were generally accepted and now you are saying there was no disagreement.

Which one is it: Generally accepted OR no disagreement???

You used Irenaeus as an example and he accepted certain letters as Scripture that are not in our bible today.....sooooo you have me VERY confused.

Mary

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

How does one disciple a illiterate person?

That is exactly why Protestant Christians sought to establish literacy everywhere they went--so that the people could read the Scriptures for themselves. But, even though someone may not have been able to read, understanding human speech is a given AFTER A CERTAIN AGE. You are taking up my time with nonsense as you strive to justify the RCC (and there is a great deal which CANNOT be justified).

How does one deny that an infant is not a person?

I see you are ignoring my question on the ability to disciple an infant and have misrepresented what I said into me saying that an infant is not a person--which is a lie.

How does one add to scripture words that are not there???

I have not added ONE word to Scripture! That accusation of yours is also a lie. I think this will be my last response to you. Too bad you apparently can't think for yourself--but then, I find that the fiercest defenders of the RCC are singularly unable to think for themselves.

Why are you denying that infants should not be brought to Jesus when He said bring them to me?

YOU invented that.

More bla-bla of the same ilk. Why do you lie and then repeat the lies? I'm putting you on "ignore".

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

On what do you base your lie above (in RED)??
This is a patently FALSE statement. There were MANY Books that were considered to be inspired Scripture before the Canon was officially decided on.

The Protoevangelium of James, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistles of Barnabas, The Gospel of Peter, etc. Where do YOU get off claiming that they were NOT considered inspired Scripture when HISTORY tells us they were??

Where do you get off spouting RCC dogma at me? There were very sound reasons for rejecting the books which were excluded and you should know that. Here's a link to a website that explains some of what you should know: What are the pseudepigrapha?