Books left out of the Bible

[Tutorman]

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.

I say this because some believe Jesus was God. WHich makes no sense. Why would Jesus pray to God if He is God? That would be like talking to yourself.

Jesus was, is and always will be God. Jesus is not two person that is the heresy of Nestorianism

 

[PeaceB]

Why did you state "Catholic Church"; when in truth, it was through prayerful deliberation and research that an Ecumenical Council determined the validity of Scripture; for as much as the Catholics claim that it was their gift to the Church, in truth "catholic" at that time was not a noun, but a verb, meaning universal or "the whole" Church.

It is well documented as to the reasons if you do a bit of research instead of seeking popular opinion.

I thought that Lutherans turned to Martin Luther as the authority over the canon of Scripture. Am I mistaken?

Luther's canon - Wikipedia

Luther's canon is the biblical canon attributed to Martin Luther, which has influenced Protestants since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a canon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church. It differs from the 1546 Roman Catholic canon of the Council of Trent in that it rejects the Deuterocanonical books and questions the seven New Testament books, called "Luther's Antilegomena",[1] four of which are still ordered last in German-language Luther Bibles to this day.[2][3]​

Goatee seems to have written "Catholic Church" because he believes that the Catholic Church is the same church as the church that held those Ecumenical councils, regardless of what term you would prefer to use to describe that church. He seems to believe that the Catholic Church believes what they believed, and that their bishops passed down authority to our bishops though the laying on of hands.

I don't think you want to use the Councils, do you? They include the Deterocanonical books, which you reject. I would stick with the "self-authenticating Scripture" argument if I were in your position. As unreasonable as that argument is, it seems to to be your best option as far as the canon of Scripture is concerned. Either that, or perhaps you may want to take the "fallible collection of infallible books" approach that some Protestants take.

Good luck.

 

[Anto9us]

"The prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me. I asked Isaiah if he could favor us with his lost works. He said none of equal value were lost. Ezekiel said the same of his."

So wrote William Blake in THE MARRIAGE OF HEAVEN AND HELL.

C. S. Lewis had kind of an answer to that in a book called THE GREAT DIVORCE, which was very imaginative.

 

[SolomonVII]

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

It only means that that many writings were not deemed trustworthy enough to be an inerrant guide to all matters of Christian faith and morals.

And some of the works were supportive of gnostic points of view.

 

[Goatee]

I do like the idea that some are worthy to be read for information etc. Ok, the Church didnt they were worthy to be put into the Bible but like the Didache i am sure some have a sound place in 'religion'.

Its sorting the wheat from the chaff that would be the issue for me. I would love to read them all!

Is there a list available so that one can pick and read one?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I thought that Lutherans turned to Martin Luther as the authority over the canon of Scripture. Am I mistaken?

Luther's canon - Wikipedia

Luther's canon is the biblical canon attributed to Martin Luther, which has influenced Protestants since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a canon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church. It differs from the 1546 Roman Catholic canon of the Council of Trent in that it rejects the Deuterocanonical books and questions the seven New Testament books, called "Luther's Antilegomena",[1] four of which are still ordered last in German-language Luther Bibles to this day.[2][3]​

Goatee seems to have written "Catholic Church" because he believes that the Catholic Church is the same church as the church that held those Ecumenical councils, regardless of what term you would prefer to use to describe that church. He seems to believe that the Catholic Church believes what they believed, and that their bishops passed down authority to our bishops though the laying on of hands.

I don't think you want to use the Ecumenical Councils, do you? They include the Deterocanonical books, which you reject. I would stick with the "self-authenticating Scripture" argument if I were in your position. As unreasonable as that argument is, it seems to to be your best option as far as the canon of Scripture is concerned. Either that, or perhaps you may want to take the "fallible collection of infallible books" approach that some Protestants take.

Good luck.

Well, the Wikipedia article is not entirely correct. Politics on both sides of the reformation still come into play to this day.

Regardless of Luther's opinion on some books of the Bible, he did translate them, and they are in what is known as "The Luther Bible".

In our Lutheran Confessions (The Book of Concord) there is no defined cannon of Scripture; in fact, Lutherans generally view Scripture as being "open". Since the time of Jerome, Luther and the KJV, older texts and fragments of texts have came to light that more pragmatic Christian Churches (such as both of ours) consult when translating and approving translations. Likewise, there are references in Scripture to other texts that have been lost to history; maybe some day these will come to light.

The arrangement of books follows the arrangement that St. Jerome advocated, but that was overruled by those in authority over him. Likewise the KJV follows this arrangement.

The number of books in "Lutheran Bibles" varries depending on which translation. Since the use of Latin was retained in many Lutheran Congregations up too and beyond the "age of orthodoxy" (one can see this by the many ecclesial composition by J. S. Bach that are in Latin, including his Lutheran Masses), various editions of the Vulgate were retained and approved for use; some with more "apocryphal" books than are currently approved by the Catholic Church.

When Concordia Publishing House decided to print our newest study Bible, it was their intent to restore these books to their historical location; however, by the time all the reference and supporting material as well as foot notes noting differences in the various ancient texts and cross references to other books of the Bible was included, it was already a very large book. Concordia then published the Lutheran Apocrypha in a separate companion volume. Information on this publication can be found here:
The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes
Contents (https://www.cph.org/pdf/012065.pdf):

Rather comprehensive eh?

Some of these books do still see liturgical usage in the propers of our various liturgies in Graduals, Antiphons and some of our hymns.

In Luther's German Translation (for German Lutherans and German speaking Protestants, it would be the equivalent of the KJV); it standardized the written German language; and is still in use today by many Amish and old order Mennonites.

I hope this helps to clear up some misunderstandings.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Agreed as I have read that book. It's amazing. I am surprised it was left out.

Could it be that some were left out because the church felt that people would not go the way 'it' wanted them to?

No, the Didache was not included only because the authorship could not be proven. It is still the basis of the Mass/Divine Service in Liturgical Churches.

 

[PeaceB]

As I have said earlier, I regard the Gospel of Thomas to be worthy of canonization. The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) might be worthy as well but we are missing the entire centre portion --- it was torn out to serve as kindling for a cooking fire. On the other hand some others are so fanciful as to be "out in left field" like the several Infancy Gospels and the Gospel of Peter.

Well. Perhaps you can include those books and start your own new religion like Joseph Smith did.

 

[JackRT]

Well. Perhaps you can include those books and start your own new religion like Joseph Smith did.

The canon of the Bible is set and I have no desire to either change it or start my own religion. However, that for me, does not preclude valuing other documents as well.

 

[Phantasman]

For many years now I seek the Gospel message of Christ.

He says to seek FIRST the kingdom of God.

The Canon Gospels use the kingdom of God over fifty times. The non Canon Gospels use the term just as much.

The OT never uses the term. I haven't seen the term appear in the Qu'ran either. Haven't seen it in what I have read of the Book of Mormon.

The term is in Acts and used by Paul. It never appears in Hebrews, the Pastorals or Revelations.

Jesus said to believe the Gospel. His teachings. No one elses.

Mark:
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Some one here said it is through faith and not knowledge. But a mystery isn't discovered by faith, but through knowledge.

Mark:
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

The Kingdom of Heaven is mentioned only in Matthew. But Jesus uses the word kingdom quite often in all Gospels. His teachings of the word is not like anything in the many books surrounding his Gospel message.

 

[jaybird88]

does anyone have any thoughts on why Enoch was not included with the LXX? this never made sense to me. when you get to the council of Jamnia and Nicea there seems to be strong political motives but the setting in Alexandria was pretty open.

 

[YHWH_will_uplift]

does anyone have any thoughts on why Enoch was not included with the LXX? this never made sense to me. when you get to the council of Jamnia and Nicea there seems to be strong political motives but the setting in Alexandria was pretty open.

Remember that by the time the Jews came under the rule of Greece that the practice of using a lunar base calendar was heavily solidified within the mainstream community as many Jews abandoned the solar calendar originally established in Genesis 1:1-2:3. There was a huge calendar war going on and not to mention a war beginning against the Jews to abandon the laws of God for the laws of Greece. This is nothing new as the Jews were always tested in their faith each time they were conquered by a foreign nation.

 

[jaybird88]

Remember that by the time the Jews came under the rule of Greece that the practice of using a lunar base calendar was heavily solidified within the mainstream community as many Jews abandoned the solar calendar originally established in Genesis 1:1-2:3. There was a huge calendar war going on and not to mention a war beginning against the Jews to abandon the laws of God for the laws of Greece. This is nothing new as the Jews were always tested in their faith each time they were conquered by a foreign nation.

are you saying Greek politics kept out Enoch? if that was true then wouldnt they have pushed them to lose Maccabees being as it wasnt so favorable to the Greeks.

 

[Goatee]

How did people manage in the days when the Bible did not exist? People these days argue about this that and the other in the Bible!

Since the Bible appeared there has been nothing but division. Has man got it all wrong?

 

[JackRT]

Has man got it all wrong?

Maybe not all.

 

[Goatee]

Tradition must have had a massive part in teaching in the first few hundred years. There was no 'Bible'.

All that was to hand were scrolls of different letters and Gospels. Yet, with all these, Christianity continued to go in the right direction.

Where would 'Sola Scripture' believers be in those days? People could not just pick up a copy of scripture like you can now! They had to rely on preachers. Traditions handed down.

'Sola Scripture' is a 'modern' idea!

I am sure that there other scrolls etc that probably could have or should have made it into the Bible.

 

[jaybird88]

when Jesus gave the 12 the big commission i dont remember Him telling them what scriptures to use and i dont see the 12 making a big deal about which scriptures are "inspired". Paul makes that statement about all scriptures are inspired and good for teaching yet doesnt tell us what scriptures he is talking about.
IMO the only ones making a big deal about what scriptures are true are the ones causing all the problems, pharisees and roman councils. the ones that teach but dont do what they teach.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The canon of the Bible is set and I have no desire to either change it or start my own religion. However, that for me, does not preclude valuing other documents as well.

If indeed one "knows" that it is set; as I said above, there is no canon listed in our Lutheran Confessions.

Those books listed in the "Lutheran Apocrypha", if nothing more, give insight and context to the people living at the time that they were written. Some are quite clearly fiction as they disagree on times and historical facts from one book to the next (3 and 4 Macc. compared to 1 and 2); religious fiction, but fiction none the less. Again, devotional material has often use imaginary situations to illustrate a point (remember Davy and Goliath and Vegy tails)

 

[Monk Brendan]

My view is the added books are not canon. They were created by other people and clash with many other "normal" bible books. So much so that it changes everything. I could list a few examples such as prayer beads. But one I recently thought about is how it says "Mary, mother of God.". Thats blasphemy. She is the mother of Jesus, not God. We can get into technical terms like "Well Jesus is God!", but it doesn't matter since Jesus was born in this world and hence Mary is the mother of Jesus, not God Himself.

Actually, the correct term is Theotokos or Birth-Giver of God. If Jesus is God (which He is) and Mary is His mother, then obviously, she is the Theotokos.

"Birth-Giver of God" is (in English) an awkward phrase, so for many people, "Mother of God" is an easier phrase. But to accuse anyone of blasphemy is silly. If you have to "blame" someone, or accuse someone, blame the Latin language, as they used Dei Genetrix (Mother of God). But for goodness sake, don't blame the Catholic Churches, it is a fault of the language itself. Blame and accuse Cicero.

 

[Goatee]

Could some books have been left out because they did not fit in with what the 'church' wanted? Did they take people away from the church and were thus not included?