general questions

[français]

hey you guys,

ok, so recently I watched the History Channel coumentary "Banned from the Bible." it basically talks about books that are supposingly supposed to be in the Bible.. like the "gospel" of Thomas and James, some book about Adam and Eve, and many others.

what do you guys think of this? any thoughts?

also, i was wondering about the age of the Gospels and all. I believe it was writtenshorlty after Christ.. but people say it was written 100 years later.. what do you guys think? any proof?

and lastly, in the Dead Sea Srolls, there were a few more books in there that we don't have in our present Bible.. why?

 

[Onlythingavailable]

I haven't seen the documentary in question, but a similar one I saw about the "gospel of Judas" wasn't really made from a Christian perspective. I'm not sure those who make these documentaries consider the doctrine or message of texts, instead they seem to build on dates and archeological "evidence." I believe God has protected the Bible and kept if free from false doctrine, and as such I do not worry about unknown gospels.

Sorry I couldn't be of more use!

 

[childofGod31]

I believe the Christian Council of ancient times determined which books were Spirit-filled and which were just literature of that age, or non Christian view, or even something made up. Just because the book's title says: "The Gospel of Thomas" doesn't mean Thomas the disciple was the one who wrote it. It could've been somebody else that wrote it, as a literature piece, but wanted Christians to read it and named it that way.

But I guess I believe that God made sure that only the Spirit-filled books got into the "Bible" collection of books. The same way the deacons in our churches tell us that they feel God is LEADING them to make a certain decision.

 

[plmarquette]

all the ones the History , discovery , and National Geographic channel has just " found " have been around for years ... run a seach on Gnostic Gospels , Pseudopegrapha , and Apocrypha ...

they were not included in either the canon of 72 or canon of 66 because they contained errors or contradicted what was considered true in the present bible

 

[DailyBlessings]

I consider the Gospel of Thomas to be different from the other apocryphal gospels- it more or less conforms to the rest of Scripture, and Paul quotes it at one point which lends some strength to its case. However, in most cases there are clear reasons why the books that were not included in the Bible were excluded. Many flatly contradict revealed truth in accepted gospels, others were clearly forgeries... If you are interested in reading some of the texts that our church fathers rejected, you can find them at www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[ContentInHim]

and lastly, in the Dead Sea Srolls, there were a few more books in there that we don't have in our present Bible.. why?

The Dead Sea Scrolls also included household accounts and diary scribblings. Want to include them also?

Seriously, the Dead Sea Scrolls did not include any books, except those regarded by the Jews as scripture and we call OT, which could be construed as God's word!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

ok, so recently I watched the History Channel coumentary "Banned from the Bible." it basically talks about books that are supposingly supposed to be in the Bible.. like the "gospel" of Thomas and James, some book about Adam and Eve, and many others.

what do you guys think of this? any thoughts?

The "documentary" has a catchy but inaccurate title. Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 200s. But by then, the 4 gospels had already been recognized as Scripture by the early church. This is clearly seen in the controversy with Marcion (AD 140) and in Irenaeus' (170) statements.

Also, sometimes these "documentaries" highlight marginalized views that were never part of Christianity. Its like someone 500 years from now saying, "people back in the 1990s thought the earth was flat instead of round." Statements like that are misleading, since the vast majority don't hold to this marginalized view. If they are serious about the "books that didn't make it" then they would spend their time on the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Revelation of Peter.

also, i was wondering about the age of the Gospels and all. I believe it was writtenshorlty after Christ.. but people say it was written 100 years later.. what do you guys think? any proof?

Well, many scholars believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written anywhere from the 50s through the 70s (AD). The Gospel of John is believed to have been written about AD 85. The earliest "hard" evidence for the Gospel of John dates from AD 125, from Egypt. This would confirm an AD 85 or earlier date. Anyone who attempts to date the Gospel of John after AD 100 is running into serious problems.

and lastly, in the Dead Sea Srolls, there were a few more books in there that we don't have in our present Bible.. why?

Not all books that we read today are Scripture and considered inspired. The same is true for both Judaism and early Christian communities. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew, but a few were written in Aramaic and Greek. Besides Bible books, there were commentaries on the Bible books, and religious texts from the Qumran community. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't all written at the same time and by the same people.


LDG

 

[Jesusong]

I consider the Gospel of Thomas to be different from the other apocryphal gospels- it more or less conforms to the rest of Scripture, and Paul quotes it at one point which lends some strength to its case.

He does???

Where? Cite references please, from Paul and the gospel of Thomas.

 

[DailyBlessings]

He does???

Where? Cite references please, from Paul and the gospel of Thomas.

It is disputed actually, but here are the verses in question:

Thomas v. 17
Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."

1st Corinthians 2:9
But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him"

Both "Thomas" and Paul are referencing Isaiah ch 64, but their wording is closer to each other than to Isaiah's. It has also been suggested that both are quoting the lost Q Gospel, but that and the early date would still put Thomas on par with the other synoptic gospels as a reliable source of knowledge about Christ. I hold it in fairly high esteem.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Whenever I watch a 'documentary' about the bible on the History or National Geographic channel I have a good laugh, or get really mad.

 

[ContentInHim]

I'm with oldwiseguy. I usually record them so I can skip commercials and forceably delete them if I get upset.