Books left out of the Bible

[mcarmichael]

For me, I would llike to read the possible collection or library (larger than the Earth) on the complete life of Jesus (See John 21:25). Now, that would be awesome! It's probably a library in Heaven somewhere if such a thing exists.



...

Depends who wrote it. I could imagine some writers turning it into a very tedious subject.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Depends who wrote it. I could imagine some writers turning it into a very tedious subject.

If it is God's Word then it's gonna be good no matter what!
Just one verse in God's Word for us today is like diving into a deep ocean.
Great stuff!


...

 

[mcarmichael]

If it is God's Word then it's gonna be good no matter what!
Just one verse in God's Word for us today is like diving into a deep ocean.
Great stuff!


...

Yeah, or flying.

 

[GingerBeer]

Didn't Mary give birth to Jesus rather than merely to his flesh?

The Word, is the eternal Spirit of Jesus. The flesh of Jesus was created within the womb of his mother, Mary. The flesh within the womb was both man and God and was given the name, Jesus at his birth.

Okay, the Word is how John refers to the Lord before he was "made flesh and dwelt among us" but that is not what I asked about. My concern is to avoid making some kind of separation between Jesus as God and Jesus as "flesh". Jesus is a person and that person is God and a man at the same time. The old creeds spelled it out

The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ. (Athanasian Creed)​

 

[GingerBeer]

What I mean is Jesus on earth was human. As a human he still prayed and talked to God, His Father. Hence they are two separate people. In heaven currently, They are still two separate "beings" if you will.

Have you discussed this with your pastor?

 

[GingerBeer]

Interesting point. Did your mother give birth to you rather than merely your flesh. Like myself we merely become cognisant over time, from a blank to being self aware. Can an eternal God divest himself of his nature and be born just like one of us. Except in Jesus' case his memories go beyond what we are capable of understanding. John 3:12 John 3:8

It is an interesting question that caused debate in several centuries of the church's history. Eventually the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon ruled on the matter and slowly the debates died down and then disappeared for a long time. Maybe the debates are back again. Anyway the creeds from those early centuries are still with us and one of them says

But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully
the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that
we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God
and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ. (Athanasian Creed)​

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Why would I need to be? This is how everyone refers to Jesus/God. Actually the trinity, father, son and holy spirit. Three in one and yet we identify them also separately at the same time.

For example we say the Holy Spirit is like a guide that helps us in life. God has given us it. Even though they are one in the same, they are still identified as two diffrent things.

Though technically speaking I guess that could be wrong since I sometimes say God or Jesus guides me.

 

[Yarddog]

Okay, the Word is how John refers to the Lord before he was "made flesh and dwelt among us" but that is not what I asked about. My concern is to avoid making some kind of separation between Jesus as God and Jesus as "flesh". Jesus is a person and that person is God and a man at the same time. The old creeds spelled it out

The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ. (Athanasian Creed)​

Who is trying to make a separation between Jesus as God and Jesus as flesh?

 

[GingerBeer]

Who is trying to make a separation between Jesus as God and Jesus as flesh?

I do not know if anybody is that is why I asked "Didn't Mary give birth to Jesus rather than merely to his flesh?" because Mary did give birth to Jesus and not merely to Jesus' flesh.

 

[mcarmichael]

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes. Plus the other 'Gospels' we see that are not included. Are they worth reading? I have been interested in these but never read any except St Thomas Gospel.

They're worth reading from a purely academic point or to understand what views existed in antiquity; but the heretical "gospels" don't have any spiritual value for us. Even calling them "gospels" is quite a stretch, since they have virtually nothing in common with the works we know as the gospels, as the chief definition of what makes a gospel a gospel is that it communicates the Gospel Story, which by definition means the Passion and resurrection; what God was doing for the world, rescuing it, overthrowing sin and death and the inauguration of the kingdom of God in and through Jesus the Christ. What you'll get in the various heretical "gospels" are complex cosmological treatises concerning Bithos/the Monad and the Pleroma from which came the many emanated aeons; "Jesus" in these is largely there purely as a literary construct in order to communicate the mysteries of divine gnosis, lost to man on account of the Demiurge and man's imprisonment to material flesh; Jesus functions purely as a vehicle of the Christus aeon to communicate the mysteries of the divine gnosis in order that the inner circle of the privy elect might ultimately, over and against the countless throngs of the ignorant masses, discover their internal divine spark and be reunited with the pleroma.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GingerBeer]

Why would I need to be? This is how everyone refers to Jesus/God. Actually the trinity, father, son and holy spirit. Three in one and yet we identify them also separately at the same time.

For example we say the Holy Spirit is like a guide that helps us in life. God has given us it. Even though they are one in the same, they are still identified as two diffrent things.

Though technically speaking I guess that could be wrong since I sometimes say God or Jesus guides me.

Christians refer to the Father as God and the Son as God and the Holy Spirit as God while making it clear that Christians believe in one God not three and also while making it clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are persons distinct one from the other. So there is one God - that is one being who is God - and three persons who are God. The ancient creeds say it

Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic [apostolic/universal] faith, which
except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will
perish eternally.

Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For
there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy
Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the
Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the
father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three
eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three
almighties but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not
three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be
both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say,
there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the
Father alone, nod made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the
Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So
there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy
Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before
or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are
coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity
in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of
salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity. (from the Athanasian Creed)​

So the idea of Mary being the mother of God because Jesus is God and Mary is his mother is logical even if some people do not like the phrase.

Anyway, as far as I know none of the extra books says that Mary is the mother of God so I guess this is a bit off topic. Sorry.

 

[WilliamBo]

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, - Jude

I believe Jude got that from the book of Enoch. If so, should not the Book of Enoch be included in the Bible?

Yes that line from Jude is 1 Enoch 1:9. I have studied the Book of Enoch a little bit and it is a very interesting book, about all the fallen angels, the original sins that they taught to mankind, and how the world was before the flood. It is still part of the Ethiopian Bible. I don't know about 2 and 3 Enoch, one of the sections is very strange, going on and on for many chapters talking about how the universe works in ''parts'' and ''sections'', but in very strange terminology.

 

[Walsinghsm Way]

Baruch HaShem, Goatee! Thanks for your question.

Lots of books were left out of the Bible when it was 'assembled' by the Catholic Church via the Holy Spirit all those years ago.

Now, does it mean that the many 'Gospels' 'letters' etc are not worth reading or should not be read? Are there many truths to be taught by reading them or are there too many lies contained within them?

Obviously the question of the Canon, it's composition, recption, development, amd closing is a complicated, often convoluted one. Several canonical Books like James and Revelation, and some of the deutero-Pauline Epistles almost did not make it into the canon at all; others like 1 or 2 Peter had relatively late attestations in homilies or commentaries (in some cases as late as the third century A.D. for the earliest surviving quotation).

But the primary criterion for inclusion for any Book was whether the Book in question agreed with and handed down the apostolic faith. Those that did would eventually be accepted, those that did not were discarded. The earliest list of Books considered canonical comes from, I believe, a Festal Letter of St. Athanasius for Pascha A.D. 367. And at that, other Books continued to be debated, right up to the 'definitive' closing of the Canon in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, the various Confessions ad the Council of Trent. And yes, thats just the Western Church. The various Eastern Churches have their own history of the Canon.

Canonical Books are those Books that contain the Word of God revealed as recorded. All the other Books of whatever genre, are at best commentaries on the sacred text, and at worst attempts to subvert the clear meaning of Scripture, with a large middle ground of sectarian writings that probably did not circulate beyond small conclaves of the Empire. This doesn't mean we cant read them amd find points of agreement with Bible texts, only that what truths are in these other Books confirm the existing Books, or provide moral exhortations amd liturgical norms for communities.

Perhaps the best way to put it is in the words of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England,

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers,
Deuteronomy,
Joshua,
Judges,
Ruth,
The First Book of Samuel,
The Second Book of Samuel,
The First Book of Kings,
The Second Book of Kings,
The First Book of Chronicles,
The Second Book of Chronicles,
The First Book of Esdras,
The Second Book of Esdras,
The Book of Esther,
The Book of Job, The Psalms ,
The Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Four Prophets the greater,
Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras,
The Fourth Book of Esdras,
The Book of Tobias,
The Book of Judith,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. VII.

The important part for our discussion is the clause "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine". Granted, the Article refers explicitly *only* to Apocryphal Books within the OT, but for our purposes we can extend the clause to cover other inter-testamemal Books, and the vast literature produced by various groups calling themselves Christian, Gospels, Acts, Epistles. They are more profitable, I think to historians of theology, or Church History in situating the actual canonical Books in historical, cultural context.

A good read on the subject, in my opinion is Jaroslav Pelikan's Whose Bible Is It: A Short History of the Scriptures.

I hope this helps, my brother

 

[Yarddog]

I do not know if anybody is that is why I asked "Didn't Mary give birth to Jesus rather than merely to his flesh?" because Mary did give birth to Jesus and not merely to Jesus' flesh.

The flesh refers to the man Jesus. Most understand that. Now, please allow the thread to get back on track or start a new thread.

 

[Deadworm]

I have read all the Jewish and Christian literature from the NT era and earlier, and IMHO the only book that might merit serious consideration for inclusion in the Protestant Old Testament is Ecclesiasticus, also known as Sirach. But before we get to the question of omitted books, we need to address the question of the content of the biblical canon in the first century Mediterranean world. There are at least 4 issues that make this question important:

(1) Jude 6 and 9 apparently allude to both 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative.

(2) Paul quotes a lost Apocalypse of Elijah in 1 Corinthians 2:9.

(3) Protestants embrace the OT canon established by rabbis at Jamnia around 95 AD.
But Catholics basically follow the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT that includes the Jewish apocrypha.

(4) What the NT claims about biblical inspiration applies only to the OT. Our NT canon achieved a consensus only around 200 AD. Prior to that, other Christian books were treated as Scripture, which were later rejected. If we can't believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early Catholic church to finally make the right selections, then the identity of true Scripture is truly chaotic.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe Jude got that from the book of Enoch. If so, should not the Book of Enoch be included in the Bible?

That quote met at least one of the requirements.

It met that one requirement because the Holy Spirit moved Jude to quote it.

 

[redleghunter]

Lots of books were left out of the Bible when it was 'assembled' by the Catholic Church via the Holy Spirit all those years ago.

Now, does it mean that the many 'Gospels' 'letters' etc are not worth reading or should not be read? Are there many truths to be taught by reading them or are there too many lies contained within them?

I don't want this to be a Catholic bashing thread.

Let's just discuss my questions. Thank you

The early church councils applied several basic standards in recognizing whether a book was inspired.

A. Is it authoritative (“Thus saith the Lord”)?

B. Is it prophetic (“a man of God” 2 Peter 1:20)?

- A book in the Bible must have the authority of a spiritual leader of Israel (O.T. – prophet, king, judge, scribe) or and apostle of the church (N.T. – It must be based on the testimony of an original apostle.).

C. Is it authentic (consistent with other revelation of truth)?

D. Is it dynamic – demonstrating God’s life-changing power (Hebrew 4:12)?

E. Is it received (accepted and used by believers – 1 Thessalonians 2:13)?

(Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible. pp. 137-144).

I would say a lot of the post resurrection works which were rejected by the Church failed test "A" and "B."

 

[Jim Langston]

Lots of books were left out of the Bible when it was 'assembled' by the Catholic Church via the Holy Spirit all those years ago.

Now, does it mean that the many 'Gospels' 'letters' etc are not worth reading or should not be read? Are there many truths to be taught by reading them or are there too many lies contained within them?

I don't want this to be a Catholic bashing thread.

Let's just discuss my questions. Thank you

I have read every apocryphal book I have found and then some, such as the books of Enoch and the books of Adam and Eve. I have found all to be true after reading, agreeing with the rest of testimony and with personal knowledge.

That being said, the books of Adam and Eve on the face of it would seem to disagree with the book of Genesis. The answer for this is not found in scripture but in creation, in the nature of things. I could explain it, but it is my understanding that my explanation would not be welcome here. Suffice it to say, with man nothing is possible, with God all things are possible, including going back and fixing things.

 

[Norbert L]

It is an interesting question that caused debate in several centuries of the church's history. Eventually the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon ruled on the matter and slowly the debates died down and then disappeared for a long time. Maybe the debates are back again. Anyway the creeds from those early centuries are still with us and one of the says

But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully
the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that
we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God
and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ. (Athanasian Creed)​

There is an old theological debate that's regained a little popularity nowadays. That's the one argument I found had the highest explanatory power for Jesus being God because I don't see how Jews can call any man God (John 20:28) with their present monotheistic theology. There is clear language used in the OT that there was more than one God/Elohim power in heaven and such theology was accepted among the sects of Judaism around two thousand years ago. In short there are OT reasons why we have some ancient NT manuscripts that read, "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." Jude 1:5 ESV