Lost Scriptures?????

[inhimitrust]

Luna, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the canon is closed. The "lost gospels" may be interesting reading but they are not the Word of God. They are LOST for a reason - they were thrown out. When the Bible was being put together in the 4th century, some wanted to include these false gospels, but at the Councils of Carthage and Rome the Holy Spirit worked through the Church to give us only inspired books in the Bible.
I have read parts of one of them (might have been Thomas) and I was disgusted by it. I will not mention why I was disgusted, but all I will say is that before anyone reads the false gospels, you should have a firm foundation in the true gopels, so you will recognize heresy when it rears its ugly head. Remember, these false gospels were written to spread heresy, to confuse Christians, to spread lies about Christ. IF you decide to read them, remember the purpose for which they were written: to confuse YOU. And be careful.

You are absolutely correct about having a firm foundation in the original NT gosples and epistles. I believe the book of Enoch might be inspired. I have read the other "lost books" and don't really have an opinion on them.
I go to sites all the time concerning contradictions in the bible and and one that throws out all of Paul's epistles and labels him as false apostle!!! Here are 2 sites that I know of and unless you truly have a lot of faith in the bible right now, I would stay away from these sites.
Otherwise, these sites can actually help with bible study, because you look at how they are translating and interpreting scripture and why they are wrong compared to the way you yourself interpret and view scripture.
. The bible is 100% devinely written the way I see it, and I have pretty much decided it is mostly fullfilled, so I just look at how others see it and can usually refute a lot of what they are looking at.

Note to readers. I removed both sites that I had posted, because I feared some people that weren't strong enough in the Spirit might get doubts about the bible from them. But there are sites all over that show contradictions and falseness in the bible, but all of it can be refuted easily enough.

This is a messianic site trying to bring jews to believe in Christ, but by doing that, they throw out all of Paul's epistles!!!!!! I can refute almost all of this pretty easy, but it is dangerous if you don't undertand Paul already.

This one has so many contradictions of mainly the OT Torah and prophets, but also some in the NT. Because of the symbolism and figuratism of God's words in the bible, a lot of what this site has can be refuted also, but it must be thru the Holy Spirit and God.

 

[ps139]

Wow! Thats a new one, throwing out Paul...totally ridiculous.

 

[ClementofRome]

I always find this to be a fascinating topic for discussion. My doctoral dissertation was/is titled, "The Jewish Scriptures as Rationale for the Argument in 1 Clement" (duh, thus my screen name! ).

Clement was the 3rd or 4th Bishop of Rome (depending on what you do with Linus and Anacletus), and is writing to the Corinthian church (they could never get it right). Clement, whose date is largely undisputed (96ishCE), is most definately writing from a place of authority in the Christian church. What i find most interesting is that Clement quotes or alludes to a number of extra-canonical documents in his argument against the Corinthians and yet cites this material just as he cites what would later be confirmed as OT canonical material.

Here is a list of Clement's authoritative "scriptures" that fall outside of the contemporary Jewish canon:

From Apocryphal material:
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
Judith
2,3,4 Maccabees
Sirach
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon

Additional material:
Odes of Solomon
Psalms of Solomon
Sibylline Oracles
Apocayphal Ezekiel
Assumption of Moses
Eldad and Modad
and possibly the Testaments of both Simeon and Judah (though this is not clear)

And of course, he also cites NT material, so to see an excellent coverage of that discussion see Donald A. Hagner's "Use of the OT and NT in Clement of Rome."


We only have fragments of "ApocEzek" and "Eldad and Modad" is completely extinct. So, yes there are "lost scriptures.

I happen to be a Protestant Christian, but this speaks VOLUMES to me about what the early church considered to be "scripture." It is my opinion that we who are in the Protestant tradition have a much too narrow view of what is "scripture" (I know.....that statement is really going to get me into trouble). Our presuppositions have been largely driven by Martin Luther's pressupositions concerning the supposed Council of Jamnia wherein the Jewish OT canon was closed, and only those writings that originated in Hebrew would be considered canonical.

At any rate, thanks for a good discussion.

 

[SolomonVII]

There are lost biblical books in the Old Testament and quotes from books outside the canon in the New Testament.

OLD TESTAMENT

The Book of Wars - (Numbers 21:14) - “That is why the Book of Wars of the Lord says .......... “

The Book of Jashar (Upright) -( Joshua 10:13) - “So the sun stood still, till the nation avenged itself on the enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.”

The Book of Jashar - (2 Samuel 1:18) - “ .......... and ordered that the men of Judah be taught his lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar).”
...

Very possibly, these 'lost' books of the Bible may not have been much more than that what is written down in the bible. 'Books' from these archaic times may have been no more than a stone stele with a few words carved into them in commemoration of significant events.

 

[SolomonVII]

I always find this to be a fascinating topic for discussion. My doctoral dissertation was/is titled, "The Jewish Scriptures as Rationale for the Argument in 1 Clement" (duh, thus my screen name! ).

Clement was the 3rd or 4th Bishop of Rome (depending on what you do with Linus and Anacletus), and is writing to the Corinthian church (they could never get it right). Clement, whose date is largely undisputed (96ishCE), is most definately writing from a place of authority in the Christian church. What i find most interesting is that Clement quotes or alludes to a number of extra-canonical documents in his argument against the Corinthians and yet cites this material just as he cites what would later be confirmed as OT canonical material.

Here is a list of Clement's authoritative "scriptures" that fall outside of the contemporary Jewish canon:

From Apocryphal material:
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
Judith
2,3,4 Maccabees
Sirach
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon

Additional material:
Odes of Solomon
Psalms of Solomon
Sibylline Oracles
Apocayphal Ezekiel
Assumption of Moses
Eldad and Modad
and possibly the Testaments of both Simeon and Judah (though this is not clear)

And of course, he also cites NT material, so to see an excellent coverage of that discussion see Donald A. Hagner's "Use of the OT and NT in Clement of Rome."


We only have fragments of "ApocEzek" and "Eldad and Modad" is completely extinct. So, yes there are "lost scriptures.

I happen to be a Protestant Christian, but this speaks VOLUMES to me about what the early church considered to be "scripture." It is my opinion that we who are in the Protestant tradition have a much too narrow view of what is "scripture" (I know.....that statement is really going to get me into trouble). Our presuppositions have been largely driven by Martin Luther's pressupositions concerning the supposed Council of Jamnia wherein the Jewish OT canon was closed, and only those writings that originated in Hebrew would be considered canonical.

At any rate, thanks for a good discussion.

The idea of a set scripture developed very slowly. First generations knew of Jesus mainly through word of mouth and eyewitness proclamations. Over time, many wanted to read more about the life of Jesus, and many stories developed to fill this need. Some were historical, other fictional.
Old Testament Scripture was never set during these times either. In fact, it could be argued that the Masoretic Jewish text that most closely resembles the Protestant OT was determined to be such as a reaction against the popularity of these works among Christians and Christian Jews.
The Book of Enoch itself is still included in the Armenian and Ethiopian Christian bibles.
Many Christian scholars of the time, including Jerome, argued against inclusion of much of the apocryphal books, and for inclusion of some works such as the Letter of Barnabas, I believe, that was evenually decided to be excluded according on advice of Eusebius.
What was finally established as canon was eventually decided upon by council through a near unanimous decision. What remained excluded were the most fanciful works, works of a later date, and works that were not widely accepted as valid accounts of the life of Jesus.
Many of the works excluded may have some value, and may not even be heretical, aothough some clearly are.
What is heretical nowadays however, in the absense of universally recognized Church authority, is mainly in the eye of the beholder.

 

[SolomonVII]

...
This is a messianic site trying to bring jews to believe in Christ, but by doing that, they throw out all of Paul's epistles!!!!!! I can refute almost all of this pretty easy, but it is dangerous if you don't undertand Paul already.

Many messianics don't do this, and many other mainstream Christians do. Once the tradition that established scripture on the first place is rejected, it is more a matter of individual choice that anything else. It is not the Holy Spirit that is lacking. It is the Holy Tradition.

 

[ClementofRome]

Many of the works excluded may have some value, and may not even be heretical, aothough some clearly are.
What is heretical nowadays however, in the absense of universally recognized Church authority, is mainly in the eye of the beholder.

My point exactly! What is "authoritative?" If it is a list of writings that is subjective to Jamnia + Luther.....then, why or why not Clement's opinion in 95AD?

 

[roguegeek64]

One thing that many people look to to show that the Bible is the true word of God is that it hasnt been lost in the past 2000 years. I think these gnostic scriptures were lost for a reason.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yikes! Does that imply they were found for a reason?
Just kidding. The gospel of Thomas, for example, show none of the literary genius of any of orthodox gospels IMHO.
Welcome to CF, by the way.

 

[magnum]

Some of these "Lost scriptures" Need to stay lost. I advise to stick with the authorized scriptures until you have a solid foundation. Some of the "lost books" are nothing more that a tribute to catholosium and has but one purpose and that is to deify Mary and others. Stay away from these books that defiy anyone but Jesus and God.

I do have the book of Enoch and although I am not 100% convinced of it's authenticty I will say it is a good read and does not contradict the Gospel but points to the Messiah.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Some of these "Lost scriptures" Need to stay lost. I advise to stick with the authorized scriptures until you have a solid foundation. Some of the "lost books" are nothing more that a tribute to catholosium and has but one purpose and that is to deify Mary and others. Stay away from these books that defiy anyone but Jesus and God.

Well. since Catholicism does not deify Mary and others, they don't pay tribute to Catholicism do they . .


Peace to all!

 

[magnum]

I guess the Rosary sure seems like it is deifying Mary to me. Why would you pray to something or someone that is not a God?? If the RCC does not deify Mary then the Rosary and others rituals sure make it appear as such. Nevertheless, these lost books should stay lost

 

[SolomonVII]

Mary is not God. The only ones that think that of Catholics are protestants and muslims. This argument is a straw man.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I guess the Rosary sure seems like it is deifying Mary to me. Why would you pray to something or someone that is not a God?? If the RCC does not deify Mary then the Rosary and others rituals sure make it appear as such. Nevertheless, these lost books should stay lost

Hi magnum

From your perspective your questions are very good and valid ones to ask.

What I would ask you to do is leave your perspective for a moment and look at it from ours . .

First is the word "pray" . . for Protestants, this is always associated with worship due God alone today.

But it was not always this way. Originally, in older English, it meant "to ask" someone for something.

Protestantism has narrowed its meaning and use AMONG Protestants, to an act of worship due God alone.

However, Catholics and Orthodox have continued to use the word "pray" in its more general sesne, to ask another for something, though now limited to those in heaven.

When we "pray" to someone in heaven, were are only asking them to pray for us, as I might ask you to pray for me.

We are not worshipping them.

If you can come to understand that we use the word "pray" DIFFERENTLY that you do as a Prostestant, some of the misunderstandings and difficulties you have will begin disappear, and we will be better able to talk with each other about our beliefs.


I realize that things can appear a certain way to some from the outside, but I would ask you to consider this . . much like a stained glass window does not look very pretty in the daylight from the OUTSIDE, in fact it can look down right ugly, when you come inside and look at it with the sunlight streaming through it, it looks beautiful, and it all makes sense.

The Catholic faith is much like that stained glass window. You have to come inside and see it from our perspective to begin to understand what is really thre. That does not mean you need to convert, just that you need to see it from our perspective.

Like I shared before, the Rosary is mostly scriptural.


Peace in Him!

 

[magnum]

The rosary is nowhere near scriptual but hey who really cares. People will continue to ask others to intercede for them even people who have died even though the scripture planily states that this is useless.

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim 2:5.

So when someone stated "Hail Mary full of grace" it is a vain prayer. The only one full of grace is God.

 

[KennySe]

The rosary is nowhere near scriptual but hey who really cares. People will continue to ask others to intercede for them even people who have died even though the scripture planily states that this is useless.

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim 2:5.

http://www.christianforums.com/t101297

So when someone stated "Hail Mary full of grace" it is a vain prayer. The only one full of grace is God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t83870

 

[Eusebios]

So when someone stated "Hail Mary full of grace" it is a vain prayer. The only one full of grace is God.

Actually the scripture talks about the Protomartyr Stephen being full of "grace" as well.
[bible]Acts 6:8[/bible]
Though the word has been rendered "power" in english, it is clearly "grace".
Also, Mary, The Theotokos, contained God in her womb. She is therefore, full of God and hence full of grace.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

 

[kua2u]

Hi magnum

From your perspective your questions are very good and valid ones to ask.

What I would ask you to do is leave your perspective for a moment and look at it from ours . .

First is the word "pray" . . for Protestants, this is always associated with worship due God alone today.

But it was not always this way. Originally, in older English, it meant "to ask" someone for something.

Protestantism has narrowed its meaning and use AMONG Protestants, to an act of worship due God alone.

However, Catholics and Orthodox have continued to use the word "pray" in its more general sesne, to ask another for something, though now limited to those in heaven.

When we "pray" to someone in heaven, were are only asking them to pray for us, as I might ask you to pray for me.

We are not worshipping them.

If you can come to understand that we use the word "pray" DIFFERENTLY that you do as a Prostestant, some of the misunderstandings and difficulties you have will begin disappear, and we will be better able to talk with each other about our beliefs.


I realize that things can appear a certain way to some from the outside, but I would ask you to consider this . . much like a stained glass window does not look very pretty in the daylight from the OUTSIDE, in fact it can look down right ugly, when you come inside and look at it with the sunlight streaming through it, it looks beautiful, and it all makes sense.

The Catholic faith is much like that stained glass window. You have to come inside and see it from our perspective to begin to understand what is really thre. That does not mean you need to convert, just that you need to see it from our perspective.

Like I shared before, the Rosary is mostly scriptural.


Peace in Him!

Most enlightening. I think I understand it more now. You should write a book. And I love the stained glass analogy. Kind of like the Bible is the one book that in order to understand you must 'know' the author.