The Apocrypha

[GreenMunchkin]

What are your thoughts, please?

Also, when it comes to things like the Gospel of Thomas... why weren't they put in the Bible?

 

[MrJim]

I've not read it all yet (~haven't read the Thomas stuff either). I did take my Catholic Study Bible to SS for a quarter when we did an Esther study since there are more chapters of Esther in the Catholic Bible, guess that would be considered "apocryphal"?

 

[GQ Chris]

I don't agree that it was inspired.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I've not read it all yet (~haven't read the Thomas stuff either). I did take my Catholic Study Bible to SS for a quarter when we did an Esther study since there are more chapters of Esther in the Catholic Bible, guess that would be considered "apocryphal"?

Yeah, it seems like the Apocrypha has another 6 bits that add to Esther... I just find it very odd that it's not included in the Bible. Well, "Protestant" Bible, anyway.

One of the few sayings I know the Gospel of Thomas accredits to Christ is something like: "Lift a rock and I am there; split a piece of wood and you will find me..." It's beautiful - exhorts us to abide in Christ, as opposed to churchianity. But presumably even admitting that it's beautiful is heretical.

I don't agree that it was inspired.

Why not?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I don't know if the books of the Apocrypha are inspired or not. They're included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons, and I don't have any reason to believe those aren't as valid as the Protestant canon. Though my church is in the Protestant tradition, it wouldn't be the first time I've found a Catholic or Orthodox doctrine superior to the Protestant version.

After I've read them, I'll have more of an opinion I'm sure... but I think I should read the rest of the Bible first. Soon... I'm very close to finishing my first time all the way through it.

I have two editions of the Bible w/Apocrypha: The Access Bible (NRSV), which seems to be basically a student edition of the Oxford Annotated Bible; and the Catholic Study Bible (NAB). Both seem very good, certainly good enough to serve as my sole Bible if need be, except that they're both paperbacks, so lacking in durability for that purpose.

The Gospel of Thomas and other books not part of anyone's canon are another matter. I haven't really studied them, but their message isn't the same as the other gospels, so bearing in mind what Paul said about other gospel messages, it's hard for me to believe they could be inspired.

 

[Rhamiel]

Apocrapha could be left out for several reasons.
1. heretical ideas, if it preaches something that is not orthodox it would not be added
2. would not fit in, the Protoevangelion of James would not really fit into way the New Testement is set up, it starts with the Gospels and goes through Revelation, no room for the Protoevangelion that tells a lot about the birth of Mary.
3. Many NT Apocrapha was written much latter then the rest of the Bible and could not have been written by the Apostles of Disciples who claim to have written it, so unknown authorship played a big deal
in most apocraphal texts you can find both heretical ideas and unknown authorship

 

[MrJim]

Apocrapha could be left out for several reasons.
1. heretical ideas, if it preaches something that is not orthodox it would not be added
2. would not fit in, the Protoevangelion of James would not really fit into way the New Testement is set up, it starts with the Gospels and goes through Revelation, no room for the Protoevangelion that tells a lot about the birth of Mary.
3. Many NT Apocrapha was written much latter then the rest of the Bible and could not have been written by the Apostles of Disciples who claim to have written it, so unknown authorship played a big deal
in most apocraphal texts you can find both heretical ideas and unknown authorship

Welcome back!!

 

[Rhamiel]

when i said Apocrapha I ment NT gospels not in the Bible and other such books, not the OT deutercannon that the Catholic Church uses

 

[Rhamiel]

thanks Mr.Jim

 

[ReformedChapin]

A catholic that rejects the catholic apocrypha?

 

[MrJim]

A catholic that rejects the catholic apocrypha?

Nah, I think he's referencing those Gnostic Gospels..

 

[Rhamiel]

A catholic that rejects the catholic apocrypha?

I view the Duetercanon (Catholic Apocrypha) as Scripture, when I use the word Apocrypha I mean the gnostic gospels and other books that were left out of the New Testement like the Protoevangelion

 

[StreetPreacher82]

I'm waiting on my copy of the ESV with expanded Apocrypha to come. As soon as I get and read it, I'll post some thoughts.

 

[arunma]

Yeah, it seems like the Apocrypha has another 6 bits that add to Esther... I just find it very odd that it's not included in the Bible. Well, "Protestant" Bible, anyway.

One of the few sayings I know the Gospel of Thomas accredits to Christ is something like: "Lift a rock and I am there; split a piece of wood and you will find me..." It's beautiful - exhorts us to abide in Christ, as opposed to churchianity. But presumably even admitting that it's beautiful is heretical.Why not?

Actually, the idea of finding God or Christ in a rock or a piece of wood sounds like a very pantheistic idea. It leads to reverencing nature, which would violate God's warning through the Apostle Paul in Romans about worshiping the creation rather than the creator. This is one of the most debasing of sins, and is idolatry rather than worship of God. I'm guessing that's not your intent in saying that the Gospel of Thomas is beautiful. But this may explain the comments by others when you stated that the Gospel of Thomas is beautiful.

Please allow me to clarify. Do you believe that God is to be found within created things like wood and stone? Remember what the Bible says,

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Revelation 9:20-21)
​

Idolatry, i.e. worshiping physical objects, is a terrible sin in the Bible tantamount to murder. It is rather odd that the Gospel of Thomas teaches that one can find God in wood and stone, because these are the images used in many parts of the Bible, including the above passage, to describe the heinous sin of idol worship.

 

[MrJim]

Actually, the idea of finding God or Christ in a rock or a piece of wood sounds like a very pantheistic idea. It leads to reverencing nature, which would violate God's warning through the Apostle Paul in Romans about worshiping the creation rather than the creator. This is one of the most debasing of sins, and is idolatry rather than worship of God. I'm guessing that's not your intent in saying that the Gospel of Thomas is beautiful. But this may explain the comments by others when you stated that the Gospel of Thomas is beautiful.

Please allow me to clarify. Do you believe that God is to be found within created things like wood and stone? Remember what the Bible says,

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Revelation 9:20-21)
​

Idolatry, i.e. worshiping physical objects, is a terrible sin in the Bible tantamount to murder. It is rather odd that the Gospel of Thomas teaches that one can find God in wood and stone, because these are the images used in many parts of the Bible, including the above passage, to describe the heinous sin of idol worship.

 

[CruciFixed]

can u read the Gospel of Thomas online? I still wouldnt believe it to be inspired...

 

[MrJim]

can u read the Gospel of Thomas online? I still wouldnt believe it to be inspired...

http://www.murple.net/thomas/ Everything is on the web somewhere...

 

[CruciFixed]

No offense but I'm reading what I *think* is the gospel of thomas and....uh it hmmm is strange.

 

[CruciFixed]

oh u got it mr.jim thanks

 

[BereanTodd]

Gospel of Thomas says that in order for a woman to be saved she must become a man; it completely changes Christ's motivation in going after the one lost from the 100 in His flock; other gnostics are similar drivel. They are later writtings, rejected from the start, never accepted, clearly not Scripture, and of no benefit to anyone beyond being able to debate/discuss with agnostics/atheists.

The Deuterocanonical books (Catholic apocrypha if you will) are also clearly not Scripture, but they are very useful for our instructions and reading, and I think that the vast majority of protestantism in completely ignoring them miss something of our spiritual heritage.