Both the Apocalypse of John and Peter are mentioned in the same source material - and can be traced back to the 100ad era (give or take a few years)
The early Christians used this book.
Why, for Christian theists - is this book, Peter’s Apocalypse rejected yet his letters accepted?
Just curious…
Edited to add:
Fascinating.
Don’t know. However, I can speculate based on my understanding.
Perhaps rather looking at apocrypha look the reason for accepting the books which are in the canon
The Christian current canon was arbitrarily ratified at the first Nicene Council. Most of the books having been chosen by one man, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria .
The Council of Nicea was not about religion per se, it was about political power. Called by Constantine in the fourth century, its purpose was to stabilise and shift the focus of church power from Byzantine to Rome.
At the same time; most communities had their own version of ‘the way’, there were some very different views. Seems to me that Athanasius didn’t choose the canon on spiritual truth. Rather he would have tried to include books common to or accepted by Christian communities (ie their Bishops)
Books which were well known but not virtually universally so became apocrypha. The byzantine Church retained a slightly different Canon. EG they kept the Book Of Jubilee.
The foregoing is simply my opinion, from memory. I have not verified any of the information, so am ready to be corrected in any factual errors.
Exactly.
My point being, if “all scripture is inspired of God” (2 Tim 3:15,17) as the bible claims - THESE very letters arbitrarily set aside are no less “god’s word”. Surely the writer of 2 Timothy was aware of the various “word” being taught to the early Christians (also btw dated to sometime between 90 and 140 AD).
Funny how these parts of gods word are tossed aside.
When I was a JW, couldn’t figure this out. I was never satisfied with the whole Council of Nicea deciding … 
To the naive believer, absolutely.
In reality, it is my perception that the early church hierarchy stopped being mainly about god around the second century, if not sooner. What I mean is that point at which church hierarchy bestowed wealth and personal power on the holder.
A level of unwarranted personal power extended to Catholic priests (at least) until well into the second half of the twentieth century.
There is the famous story of Hypatia of Alexandria, mathematician and philosopher who the bishop of Alexandria had murdered. Worth checking out if you are unfamiliar
Trivia; The Italian papal states existed until the unification of Italy in the nineteenth century. The last recorded instance of a pope arbitrarily hanging anyone was in 1848. The last Vatican choir castrato was Alessando Moreschi who died in 1922. Recordings of the castrati choir are still available.
Btw cranks - I love 
your new icon thingy
Thanks.
Aussie cartoonist Michael Leunig. Worth checking out on Google image.
I thought this was a reasonable reply…
, BA English Literature & Christian Bible Studies, University of Sheffield
Canon formation was largely down to which texts all the churches had access to. The ones that they all had access to got in (with a little copying so the smaller churches cold catch up); the rarer ones didn’t. By the time of the Council of Nicea (where the tenets of the Christianity we know today were ratified), the canon was largely decided, and there was relatively little editing for theological reasons.
Of course, canon has changed slightly over the centuries (see 2 Daniel), and there are differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles (Maccabees) and other variations, but there was a surprisingly limited amount of “This book is HERESY! Leave it out!” if for no other reason that the canon was formed before the orthodoxy.
Besides, most of the NT Apocrypha don’t contradict orthodoxy at all. You’ve got your odd example like that one verse in the Gospel of Thomas, beloved by rebellious students just discovering anti-theism, but mostly they’re like The Shepherd of Hermas or The Sayings of Jesus and totally uncontroversial. There are also a bunch of Childhood Gospels which cover the Holy Family’s sojourn in Egypt or the period between that and the start of Jesus’ ministry, which really aren’t that interesting or relevant.
LOL 
At first I thought your banana fermented again.
If that isn’t exactly what t I actually said, it’s what I meant to say. 
LOL: I don’t know anything about it. I just did a quick search and I thought this made sense so, had I taken the time to read your reply, I am sure I would have been sufficiently impressed to as to not bother googling. LOL
