PDA

View Full Version : Lost Books of the Bible



Ragnarok
04-15-2004, 02:49 PM
Has anyone read the "Lost Books of the Bible"? It has been claimed that these books were eliminated from the bible by the church, since they conflicted with the church's idealism.

Just wondering what they said, and if they are worth reading?

Dorian
04-15-2004, 02:53 PM
No but I would be interested in reading them. I imagine that they did not fit into Pauls agenda so they were deleted.

supergarr
04-15-2004, 02:54 PM
no but i heard of em

TrudyV
04-15-2004, 03:14 PM
I've read some of them. I'd recommend reading them. The gospel of Thomas should be in the canon.

Some are weird, like one gospel fragment has the boy Jesus turning another boy into a donkey because he teased him.

You can see why they're not in the canon but there's still good stuff there. It's good to read the rejected stuff too.

Ruthless4Life
04-15-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by TrudyV
Some are weird, like one gospel fragment has the boy Jesus turning another boy into a donkey because he teased him.

For some reason I can't stop myself from thinking about a kid looking like Harry Potter turning another kid into a donkey with his magic wand.

:D

Cogar
04-15-2004, 03:29 PM
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm

Ruhanv
04-15-2004, 03:31 PM
There are loads of "lost" books out there. There have also been various versions of the current books with parts added and/or removed. In the end they hade the Nicene council in the 4th century vote on various doctrinal issues (the concept of the trinity just made it and many of the church fathers did not believe in it at the time). What you have today is a sanitized collection of manuscripts that fell in line with a set of doctrines voted upon by a politically corrupt Roman council. Any book that contradicted these doctrines were removed. The Catholic cannon included a few additions but there are many more that can found today.

Younglifter14
04-15-2004, 08:15 PM
I remember seeing this on the history channel :). Interesting actually. In the book of enouchs (sp?) [excluded from the bible], it said that angels seduced human women and had giants for babies :)

The.Giant
04-15-2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Younglifter14
I remember seeing this on the history channel :). Interesting actually. In the book of enouchs (sp?) [excluded from the bible], it said that angels seduced human women and had giants for babies :)

I thought angels were unik's

irpker
04-15-2004, 10:20 PM
There was one very important lost gospel, where Jesus stressed self-knowledge. I guess the head Christian church of the time didn't like that!

Younglifter14
04-16-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by The.Giant
I thought angels were unik's

uniks?

CITADEL
04-16-2004, 04:42 AM
One of the books claims that when Jesus was young he pushed a kid off a roof, killing him. I saw this on some show about it, might have been on History Channel, not sure. But of course the church took that one out.

ironhead31
04-16-2004, 04:58 AM
This kind of reminds you a little of the tactics used by the Democrats,trying to stir up trouble. Hell they probably wrote it if the truth where to be known.

dmbfan1
04-16-2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Younglifter14
uniks?

spelled it wrong

he meant eunuch. Its a castrated man that used to be used as a harem guard. Essentially, he has no man parts. Been watching too much Dogma:)

CITADEL
04-16-2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by ironhead31
This kind of reminds you a little of the tactics used by the Democrats,trying to stir up trouble. Hell they probably wrote it if the truth where to be known.

Ha.. except it's a fact the church excluded severel books. Maybe instead of just dismissing them as false, you should research them and see why the church took them out.

dmbfan1
04-16-2004, 08:24 AM
my only thing with these statements is the heavy cricicism on the catholic church. If you continue reading your history, look up Matin Luther. His translation of the Bible is where almost all protestant Bibles come from. When he translated his version of the bible for the germans, he went to the original texts. He went trhough all the original writings and re-translated them to make sure that the translations hadn't been watered down through the years. Not only did he end up with the same books that the Catholics had, he excluded 7 more from the OT. Its not like Catholics are the only ones to manipulate the Bible.

The Conqueror
04-16-2004, 08:28 AM
The Apocrapha were not cannonized because their authorship had been questioned.

For those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word then it was His choice what went in or what was left out.

For those that don't believe the Bible is the inspired Word....well, why sweat it?

Ruhanv
04-16-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by dmbfan1
my only thing with these statements is the heavy cricicism on the catholic church. If you continue reading your history, look up Matin Luther. His translation of the Bible is where almost all protestant Bibles come from. When he translated his version of the bible for the germans, he went to the original texts. He went trhough all the original writings and re-translated them to make sure that the translations hadn't been watered down through the years. Not only did he end up with the same books that the Catholics had, he excluded 7 more from the OT. Its not like Catholics are the only ones to manipulate the Bible.

That is true but we are not discussing translation. We are discussing the compilation of the books that Luther translated. He also did not go back to the "original texts" as they did not exist, but rather used the earliest copies available to him which were from around the 2nd to 3rd centuries.

matpal
04-16-2004, 08:55 AM
I could write a "gospel" if I wanted to. Many did this in the first 2 centuries. That in no way makes them inspired texts, or even coming close to being accepted by the people at the time who they were written to.




Originally posted by irpker
There was one very important lost gospel, where Jesus stressed self-knowledge. I guess the head Christian church of the time didn't like that!

Ruhanv
04-16-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
The Apocrapha were not cannonized because their authorship had been questioned.

For those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word then it was His choice what went in or what was left out.

For those that don't believe the Bible is the inspired Word....well, why sweat it?

Do you honestly think God came down and sat in the Nicene council and helped them sort this out. The idea of an inspired cannon is only a presumption. The bible could never call itself inspired because it did not exist until 3 centuries after it was written. When this is referred to in the NT it is actually calling the OT inspired. Its' a presumption in modern Christianity.

It also fails to take into account the politically charged environment in which the Nicene council operated in. Doctrines were not voted on based upon their divinity but upon how well they would be received in a polytheistic roman culture.

matpal
04-16-2004, 09:00 AM
And what what Paul's agenda, pray tell? Did it differ from the Agenda of Christ? Of the rest of the apostles? Please let us know.

The fact is that hundreds of early texts could be considered "lost" books of the bible because they express ideas about Christianity. The point is, they are not in the Bible because they are not inspired works. They do not coincide in the least with what was taught by Jesus. Tell me; would you include instructions on how to plant a tree in a book about how to rebuild a car engine? Even if it was written by someone in the same town, in the same year, by people expressing common interests? Even a topographical reading of such lost books leads one to the conclusion that they do not belong anywhere near the cannon. THis does not make them uninteresting or unhistorical neccessarily, but there is no conspiracy theory!



Originally posted by Dorian
No but I would be interested in reading them. I imagine that they did not fit into Pauls agenda so they were deleted.

Ragnarok
04-16-2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Cogar
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm

Hmmm...probably one of the most useful links I've ever been sent. I'm gonna start reading. Thanks, Cogar.

matpal
04-16-2004, 09:05 AM
Peter and Paul were calling each other's writings scriptures as they were being written. They knew they were writing scriptures. The decleration of the cannon was not "new" information; it was solidifying something that had been accepted for quite some time.

Regarding the Apocrapha, they were not considered inspired texts by the people who wrote them! When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the apocrapha books were found seperate from scripture, on ordinary parchment that would never be used for inspired works. MArtin Luther did not "exclude" them. HE actually praised them as important historical tools and worthy reading, but quite simply, they fail the test of cannonicity and fail it poorly.



Originally posted by Ruhanv
Do you honestly think God came down and sat in the Nicene council and helped them sort this out. The idea of an inspired cannon is only a presumption. The bible could never call itself inspired because it did not exist until 3 centuries after it was written. When this is referred to in the NT it is actually calling the OT inspired. Its' a presumption in modern Christianity.

It also fails to take into account the politically charged environment in which the Nicene council operated in. Doctrines were not voted on based upon their divinity but upon how well they would be received in a polytheistic roman culture.

dmbfan1
04-16-2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Do you honestly think God came down and sat in the Nicene council and helped them sort this out. The idea of an inspired cannon is only a presumption. The bible could never call itself inspired because it did not exist until 3 centuries after it was written. When this is referred to in the NT it is actually calling the OT inspired. Its' a presumption in modern Christianity.



Yes we believe that the Holy Spirit was with the council as they determined the books of the canon. That is why we can consider them inspired. Spare us your sarcasm. IT is what we believe. I don't care what you think of it.

As for the OT. Do you have any idea on how many books the Jewish people left out of there? Peopel were writing books all the time, that doesn;t mean they are divinly inspired. Yes we accpet the OT as inspired, we coem from the roots of Judaism, therefore, we feel thier texts to be sacred. Do a little study next time.

Jcfreak_02
04-16-2004, 10:45 AM
I have heard of them. I would guess that they contained doctrine that was inconsistent with that of Christ's teachings, as I think it is safe to say that none of the books of the bible has contradictions. From my understanding, it was a council of Christians that through prayer and meditation they were lead to know which letters were to be the scriptures and which letter were not. If someone has some I would be interested to see which ones, as well make sure they are in context.

bgzee
04-16-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by ironhead31
This kind of reminds you a little of the tactics used by the Democrats,trying to stir up trouble. Hell they probably wrote it if the truth where to be known.

It never fails... somebody has to turn every discussion into a partisan issue.

Lynne
04-16-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Younglifter14
uniks?

Angels are not eunuchs. They have procreative power. The book of Genesis speaks of the angels who were cast out of heaven. "They looked upon the women of the earth and found them beautiful and went to them, seduced them and together they bore giants." In fact, these evil giants were called Nephelim who did much evil. One reason for the great flood was to wipe out the Nephelim. Hey, did you know that the bible never speaks of female angels? Very interesting that is. Also, the bible never speaks of angels singing (unless a modern translation has replaced singing with praising).

Lost books - how about the Apocrypha? It is not included in Protestant bibles, but it is included in Catholic bibles, maybe Eastern Orthodox, too?

Ruhanv
04-16-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by matpal
Peter and Paul were calling each other's writings scriptures as they were being written. They knew they were writing scriptures. The decleration of the cannon was not "new" information; it was solidifying something that had been accepted for quite some time.

Regarding the Apocrapha, they were not considered inspired texts by the people who wrote them! When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the apocrapha books were found seperate from scripture, on ordinary parchment that would never be used for inspired works. MArtin Luther did not "exclude" them. HE actually praised them as important historical tools and worthy reading, but quite simply, they fail the test of cannonicity and fail it poorly.

Even Paul did not believe that his books were all inspired and never actually clarified what was "off the flesh" and what wasn't. Paul did comment on Peter's writings but you also have to remember that they were at odds over many things such as gentiles etc. Why would Paul have any authority to call something inspired or not.

What I find odd is how fundamentalist Christians presume that the modern KJV is inspired. Its' totally and utterly a presumption. I can understand why people do it because it gives you a security mechanism in believing that you have clear and complete basis for your faith that is from the source. To call this faith would be silly as it is not based on anything God ever said in the old or the new testament.

Ruhanv
04-16-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by dmbfan1
Yes we believe that the Holy Spirit was with the council as they determined the books of the canon. That is why we can consider them inspired. Spare us your sarcasm. IT is what we believe. I don't care what you think of it.

As for the OT. Do you have any idea on how many books the Jewish people left out of there? Peopel were writing books all the time, that doesn;t mean they are divinly inspired. Yes we accpet the OT as inspired, we coem from the roots of Judaism, therefore, we feel thier texts to be sacred. Do a little study next time.

How can you simply ignore the political context in which the Nicene council met? Do you even know what happened there and why? People really need to study a bit more before they start believing this stuff off the cuff. Then again study takes time but, hey its' only your life.

You forget that we had many gospels, some even appearantly written by some of the other apostles. Of those copies the council had, that finally made it into the modern bible, many had different versions. The final version were not chosen based upon the criteria of if they fell in line with Christ's teaching. They chose the books containing Christ's teaching that fell in line with the foundational doctrines that they had VOTED on. The idea of the trinity almost did not make it into it but because Constantine felt that it would fit into the Roman ideology of multiple gods, it became doctrine. Most of the earlier church fathers never believed in it and many early copies had no references to it.

In addition many urban legends found themselves into the final copies. They had to decide what could stay and what was probably nonsense. Today, theologians have a much clearer idea what actually was said by Jesus because we have access to a much greater range of older versions of the gospels. Needless to say the modern bible is not considered to be "all original".

You could chose to ignore this but it doesn't make it any less true. Blame Satan for trying to confuse you etc. Whatever.

Cogar
04-16-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
The Apocrapha were not cannonized because their authorship had been questioned.
There are even more reasons than that --> link (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/faq_bq.shtml#more_books)

derekmac
04-16-2004, 04:21 PM
You may be reffering to the Apocrophya, which, along with other "lost books" did not fit into the accepted canon of scripture.

derekmac
04-16-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Younglifter14
uniks?

Eunuchs ;)

Ruhanv
04-16-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by derekmac
You may be reffering to the Apocrophya, which, along with other "lost books" did not fit into the accepted canon of scripture.

Who are you responding to???

derekmac
04-16-2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
Who are you responding to???

The original thread-starter.

Cogar
04-16-2004, 04:43 PM
As a clarification, "The Lost Books of the Bible" is a marketing term applied to the Pseudepigrapha. These are early religious writings that include the following:

Epistle of Barnabas
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Book of Enoch
Gospel of Thomas
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs
Second Baruch
Third Baruch
The Books of Adam and Eve

"The Apocrypha" is the term applied to those additions that are in the Roman Catholic Old Testament that are not included in the Old Testament of "regular" Bibles. They include the following:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Barach
Letter of Jeremiah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Azariah
Prayer of Manassesh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

derekmac
04-17-2004, 04:22 AM
Thanks for the clarification, Cogar.