Other scriptures???

[genestealerbroodlord]

I have been watching many TV programes over the Christmas period based on the history of the christian church and one of the things that comes up in most of these shows is that at one time in the church there was over 80 books of scripture, such as the gospel of Phillip, Judus, Tomas and there was even one by Mary Magdalin.

What i want to know is, if you where given one of these other books to read. Would you read it?

Im not saying that the bishops that compiled the new testament where wrong to reject these books and not put them into the new testament. Im just interested in whether you would read them, given the chance.

 

[BereanTodd]

I have read them and found them extremely wanting compared to Scripture. Also I would point out that the TV shows seriously overstate their cases on the issue. Yes the books like Thomas and such existed, but they never had wide acceptance ... really had almost no acceptance ... as being Scriptural. Almost all of the ECFs aggreed upon the gospels in our Bible today. There are only a handful of NT books over which there was any debate amongst the early church as to whether or not to include them.

 

[BGMCFAR]

I believe that alot of these socalled books are not a result of divine itervention or of the HolySpirit I belive they come the spirit of LUcifer to confeuse fellow believers into believing things that don't come from the Lord . He deceived Eve did he not. So I would be very careful . I know of a certain religous sect who have a book that claims to be inspired of God and is supposed to be about Crist's life but I read the book and I don't believe it May the Lord Bless and Keep you

 

[Psalms34]

Some of those mentioned are Gnostic. Sadly, there was a wild fire of Gnosticism during the early days of the Church. As you read Acts and other books of the canonized bible, it is a frequent theme to mention such counterfeits to the Christian faith that even existed then. Careful with those TV shows, I find most of them misleading regarding the whole truth of the matter. I like the History channel a lot, but find myself changing the channel when presented with their rendition of “historical facts” and doctrines which are often cleverly deceptive as they present it.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

In light of much that I see presented about Christianity in these video documentaries, I thank God that in His Wisdom, even against the desires of many of His good intentioned children, He has saw fit to remove His Teachings from the public school system.
Can you imagine what a travesty it would be if such secular teachers with their worldly viewpoints were required to teach Christ in the classroom?

 

[YourChild]

In light of much that I see presented about Christianity in these video documentaries, I thank God that in His Wisdom, even against the desires of many of His good intentioned children, He has saw fit to remove His Teachings from the public school system.
Can you imagine what a travesty it would be if such secular teachers with their worldly viewpoints were required to teach Christ in the classroom?

interesting point

 

[Starcrystal]

I have the gospel of Mary Magdelene and the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch is still accepted as cannon by the Ethiopian Christian church. I have also read most of Philip, Thomas, the Infancy, and pretty much all the "lost books."
I take them with discernment, I compare them to the scriptures in the Bible. Where they line up they line up, where they don't then I know somethings amiss. Personally I do not believe Jesus cursed or killed some child peer because he upset him. that's mentioned in either Philip or Thomas... I forget which.
I really have no problem with what Mary M. says. Also, that book is missing several verses and it would be nice to see what is literally "between the lines" there.

 

[synger]

I have been watching many TV programes over the Christmas period based on the history of the christian church and one of the things that comes up in most of these shows is that at one time in the church there was over 80 books of scripture...

Im not saying that the bishops that compiled the new testament where wrong to reject these books and not put them into the new testament. Im just interested in whether you would read them, given the chance.

Firstly, the bishops did not "compile the new testament" in the way that is often depicted. I've heard people say that the bishops got together at Niceae and "came up with" the canon of the New Testament. It wasn't like some group of old guys got together in a back room and decided "Luke is in, but the Gospel of Thomas is out." This did not happen.

We have their writings outlining the discussion, and their understanding of what was and was not canonical. In truth, the early Church was already in agreement about 90 percent of the books of the New Testament canon by about 200 AD, because they had to clarify the canon against the claims of the heretic Marcion. He came up with a heretical canon of his own, which forced the early Church to define their canon against his heresy.

The first, and strongest criteria, is authorship. If the book was clearly and definitively written by an apostle of Christ, or the follower of an apostle, it was considered authoritiative. By the time of Eusebius (around 300), the possible books were divided into

• "accepted writings" (the gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, Peter, and John),
• "disputed writings" (Romans, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third John, and Revelation were some of these. This category also included the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, which were used by the Church for edification, but were not considered to be authoritative enough to be part of the canon), and
• "heretical books" (the gnostic writings and other heretical books like Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, and the Acts of Andrew).

I've read some of the disputed books that were not authoritative. I've also read some of the gnostic gospels and other heretical texts. I have no problem reading almost anything, as long as I know what its doctrinal bent is. But one should NOT read them thinking that they are books that were "as good as the Gospels, but just didn't make it into the New Testament for political reasons." That's just not how it worked. It's not that the ECFs didn't know about them. It's that they were not authoritative, or they were downright heretical.

I thank God that we have the scholarship and archeological know-how to find and study these ancient texts today. They help paint a more vivid picture of the life of the early Church and the questions and struggles it faced.

But we must never confuse the availability of these texts with the authority of Scripture alone to reveal and clarify God's will and work in the world.