What do you think of This???

[Kjgregor13]

Below was a post on another forum... What do you think of these and how are they explained???

I watched History channel tonight and it was this fantastic show called "Banned Books of the Bible." I took notes, listed the names of the books that were excluded from the English cannons. And the wonders of the internet, I searched them all and found ALL of them online free, and posted the links below to each one. Have a good time soul searching. I posted this topic here so that people could say what they felt without having to censor themselves to much.

Infancy gospel of Thomas
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html
Protovangelion, gospel of James http://www.zyworld.com/cosmiccreeper/newtestapoc/protovangelion.htm
The life of adam & eve
http://www.unicorngarden.com/adameve.htm
Book of enoch (its big, so this is a place to download it free) http://reluctant-messenger.com/writings.htm
Book of jubilees
http://www.piney.com/ApocJubileeBook.html
Ethiopian Christian bible
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm
Gnostic bible
(unfortunately I couldn't find a free version, they sell at around $20 a copy, if anyone finds a link to a free download please put it here).
Gospel of Philip
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.htm
Gospel of truth
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeltruth.html
Gospel of Egyptians
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelegyptians.html
Gospel of Thomas
http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
Gospel of mary
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
Gospel of peter http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html

They include Jesus' childhood from age 5-12, the fact that Jesus wasn't the first virgin divine birth, his mother Mary was. That Mary was medically examined by a priest to make sure she was a virgin, its an awesome read.

 

[Key]

All of them are great reading and very insightful.

But no different then if I read the words of Mohammed, Buddha, or Ulysses S Patton.

Just my view on them.

I have enjoyed reading them, over time, I have not read them all, but I own hard copies of each one, and enjoy reading them.

All in all, not but, but not Scripture.

Key.

 

[veva24]

not sure how they are explained, but my hubby says that revelations was almost not put in with these ones. What are the reasons that these ones were not included???

 

[Serapha]

Below was a post on another forum... What do you think of these and how are they explained???

Hi there!



There are different reasons why particular texts are left out of the canonized Bible, such as questionable authorship, or more importantly, that the text is in obvious error in that it teaches contrary to the gospel teachings of Christ...

~serapha~

 

[Radagast]

Eusebius in his History of the Church (the first official history, from 325AD or so) writes:

Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul... we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings... both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

St. Paul is very critical of the Gnostics too. I'm not sure why they're suddenly popular now.

-- Radagast

 

[Endure2]

they were not included becuase if you study them and you study the bible that we have, they are at a very high level of contradiction.

our bible says thats Jesus' beginning of miracles happened at 30 years old at a wedding were he turned water into wine.

the apocrypha (a collection of books that were not included in our canon)
say many diffrent things.
it says that as a youth at 5 or 6, Jesus made birds out a mud puttles, punished his mother and father for their unbeleif and ungodliness, (i believe it was turning mary to stone and then turning her back, though my memory isnt very clear)
he walked out of the tomb so tall that his head was in the clouds,
i dont have the books i need to tell many of the other seemingly rediculous things those books say Jesus did.

also, according to some bible experts many if not all of those books that apply to the old testament were written between the time periods of last old testiment prophet malachi and john the baptist.
and the bible makes it clear in malachi that the NEXT voice of God would be john the baptist.
there was no true voice from God or new revelation between.

though i dont have my books with me really explain this like i need to.

some of the books seem nice, but they are not biblical.

 

[Injured Soldier]

All of the NT apocryphal writings were written 2nd century AD or later. The last canon writing in the OT, was II Peter, written about 150AD. I get frustrated that the people who claim the NT can't be accurate because it was written many years after Jesus, are the same people who ask why the Gospel of Thomas isn't in there. Only an athiest could hold a logical conundrum in their head like that and think it coherant.

As someone said before, the authorship on all these is questionable. The writers used the famous names of Mary, Phillip, Peter and Thomas to make it seem a much more convincing story, but the Jesus described in these books is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic, and puts words in Jesus mouth showing he was a misoginist and a nature worshipper. This is not the Jesus of the canonical gospels, not the Jesus I worship. Thus it is rejected. Also, the Jesus of the Infancy Gospel is more like a character out of a horror movie, not my Lord.

So summing up.....late dates of writing.....questionable authorship....bad theology opposing the NT......intent to decieve. All good reasons for these books to be non-canonical.