Why were there certain "books" left out of the Holy Bible?

[pshun2404]

Well Paul you certainly [for me] gave the best reply.
So [perhaps] because Judaism is patriarchal, it wouldnt've been right to record the "holy" bloodline thru Mary & Elizabeth ?
Is that it ?

If I was adopted. Then my birthfather contacted me. This would change everything.
A stepfather/surrogatefather could not be part of my family tree.
Mathew goes to such length to prove Joseph's royal line, and says he's NOT related to Jesus. Why is that in there ?

I explained in the text. Matthew was demonstrating Jesus legal right to the throne from the perspective of 1st century Judaism. Women had no credibility whatsoever. Even their word as testimony was meaningless. Jesus real Father was in continuous contact with Him...His father was YHVH the Father. Mary and Elizabeth were only considered cousins because centuries before Levi (Elizabeth's tribe) and Judah (Mary's tribe) were brothers. The Hebrew culture had a totally different view and understanding of relationships than later westerners did. For them even 15 generationally removed cousins were still considered blood related.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

After Cain killed Abel he went to " the east of the garden, to the land of Nod where he got himself a wife ". Many explanations are given for this discrepancy in the Bible but none, except one, makes sense....there were other people around because EVOLUTION is true !

No need for this. By the time of the Cain and Abel story, both are all grown up each with their own vocation...Adam and Eve had many other children already. Cain's wife was more probably his sister or one of his sister or brothers children.

The bible indicates these are their first two children but not their only children I am sure they were fruitful and multiplied. Plus the Bible does not say one way or the other whether at some later time God did not create other people. The Bible does say "Let the earth bring forth creatures after it's kind" but none of this demonstrates Darwin's type evolution is true (which it is clearly not).

Paul

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[pshun2404]

1- Legal authority. Interesting, as Christ says give to Caesar what is caesars. Paul says to obey government as it is ordained by God, yet warns of an Evil antichrist governemt (presumably christians are to NOT obey evil government).

2-

It is generally thought that Liz and Lary were actual cousins, Gabriel spoke to both, indicating holy births (eli & messiah).
Is that the ONLY geneology connection between Liz and Meriam ?

Im grateful for your comments.

In Israel an adopted son was a son which had all inheritance rights. There was nothing evil about this form of governance. Liz and Lary may have been actual cousins in our western sense but Elizabeth and Mary were not. They were from two different tribes (one of Levi and the other of Judah). They did not cross marry and Mary was Davidic, thus of Judah and Zacharias was a priest and would only have married another levite.

Paul

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[pshun2404]

7, these books, like the gnostic gospel of Thomas written over 100 years after his death and the gospel of Mary (also 2nd century) are fiction. Jesus never married Mary Magdeline. I admit these are interesting reading but truth mixed with heresies and lies cannot be taken as authoritative. The Mormons actual doctrine when you break it down is this...that if you partake of the fruit of their knowledge (another gospel called Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price) your eyes will be opened and you will become as gods (see Genesis 3:5)...literally. They may be nice people and even quite moral but they are severely deceived. Make Holy Scripture the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine as the early church fathers confirmed for the first three centuries (the true apostolic tradition).

Love in Christ

Paul

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[pshun2404]

Are you aware of books written while jesus was still alive [in the mortal sense]?

Of course man who is God, and ressurects from death is never really dead
so all books would be written during Christs life.

From memory the cannonized gospels were written about the same time [give or take a few yrs[ as these books you call fiction.

That is the common theory among the critical school but it is not true. We actually have a fragment of Mark from 68 A.D. (in the possession of Jose O'Calligan) and one of Matthew dating from around 50 A.D. (but allegeldy more test have to be done) that is being researched by Carsten Theide. Papias comments (a student of John) are from around 100 A.D pointing to earlier copies of all the gospels. The history of the Indian Catholic church goes back to 75 A.D. when Thomas came preaching from the Hebrew/Aramaic gospel of Matthew. Also note that none of the synoptics mention the fall of Jerusalem which would have demonstrated Jesus to be a real prophet (so why would they all leave this important event out?). See what I mean?

Paul

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[pshun2404]

The genuine (and only) four gospels were all written close to the events by the people they say wrote them. The books you mentioned were written over 100 years later by liars who were not those people most of whom were gnostics (not Christians).

Paul

 

[ErminlindaRika]

When you're watching shows on the History Channel, esp. ones about the Bible, you ought to be careful. They often have these liberal scholars who sometimes are clueless as to what they're talking about. Or hold views in the minority.

There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature, anything that disagreed with what the people in power didn't like. But, none of this is true. The "lost books" were never lost. These so-called lost books were already known by the Jews and the Christians and were not considered inspired. They weren't lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with.

King James only translated the Bible to the British English around 400 years ago. So, this really does not have much to do with the so-called "lost books".

The Bible we have now IS the Word of God. The OT comprises only the writings of the genuine ancient prophets & scribes. And the prophecies are testable such as Isaiah's prophecies about The Mashiach. The NT comprises the 4 independent accounts of Jesus' lives & teachings & Paul's letters to the earliest churches. Any writing later than 95 AD are unnacceptable & cannot be trusted because it cannot be verified who wrote them.

The extra stories about Jesus cannot be verified as authentic or legendary storytelling. The other so-called Gospels like the Gospel Of Thomas which claims to have been written by Thomas is a late 2nd century Gnostic writing. The Gnostics made their own twisted writings mixing Scripture with pagan teaching. They really cannot be trusted. For example, if you read the Gospel I pointed out, you'll realize it has things Jesus of Nazareth would never preach.

We cannot allow just any writings about Jesus & The Apostles to enter God's Word ... then anything would go. The Bible is already a consistent revelation of God. The other writings have numerous problems. Like those spin-offs that claim Jesus was married.

Regarding the Adam & Eve question, Cain married his sister.

Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Then Cain founded a city, which he named Enoch, after his son.Enoch had a son named Irad. Irad became the father of Mehujael. Mehujael became the father of Methushael. Methushael became the father of Lamech. (Genesis 4:17-18)

After the birth of Seth, Adam lived another 800 years, and he had other sons and daughters.Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. (Genesis 5:4)

Can you imagine how many children he must have had during 9 decades of life? Cain would have been able to marry his sister at that time without producing deformed offspring because they were the 2nd generation of humans & would have had very little mutations. Inbreeding was ok at that point & would have been necessary. There weren't any other people groups at the time.

I'm not sure which part of the Bible talks about angels mating with humans but if they did it was probably fallen angels what are called "incubi" or "succubi" or sex demons. Also the idea of Jesus going to hell is absurd. He has nothing to do there.

 

[toLiJC]

there is a need of showing love, the large amount of knowledge is not a priority

1 John 4:7-21 "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son |to be| the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit(viz. of His Love, which is perfect love for all humans). And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son |to be| the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment(i.e. when we are always preferring/persisting for the quite direct and complete salvation in God and Jesus to all humans even in the most critical moments): because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment(i.e. non-salvation and perdition). He that feareth is not made perfect in love(i.e. perfect in the deeds of salvation). We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.",

Ecclesiastes 12:12 "And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."

Blessings

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[Juelrei]

I'm trying to understand something.
This is a bit off topic, but this is why there are misunderstandings and so called "contradictions" in the Bible. It's not that the words weren't translated correctly, but some things were lost in translation.
That's why preachers constantly have to convince people that the Holy Bible by King James IS the word of God.

Any way, here's what I don't understand. In Revelations, it says that nothing should be removed or added to the scriptures. So okay, then why are the books about Jesus childhood and some of the apostle experiences left out of the Holy Bible?
Why are those books considered non canon or not important?

1) In Revelations it says it. That book is particularly a vision from the Lord Jesus Christ. And as such, by Jewish standards cannot be tampered with by any reader to attempt to change what is written.
There is a similar statement in at least one of the writings of the prophets in the Old Testament.

Jesus youthful life is not a prophecy or a vision, therefore it doesn't warrant a "do not change what is written" on it.

2) The Jewish writers who were inspired by God himself. Jesus activities during his youth were not of importance to have been added. As it is, what is included of his youth is all that is necessary.
He was just a young Jew growing up, taking Torah education (going to school) during those years. Living a normal life. Nothing special to report.

I've read alot of fictional stories that do not include every detail of a characters life because the author decided that it was not important to the story. No readers that I know of seem to feel cheated by that.
As for those who did write of Jesus youth... they are not written by inspiration of God. But written purely for any prestige they thought they might gain from it.
From one that I read, it has him turning inanimate objects into live animals. That sort of thing is fiction.

Jesus had no ability to do such things for no real purpose, just on a whim. It was not until he was of age to enter into his ministry that he was baptized in the Jordan by John the baptist, then attended a wedding where he did his first miracle. Even then he said that it was not yet the time to do miracles. But he having the ability obliged for the sake of preventing embarrassment to the official concerning having decent wine for the guests.

Oh yeah, off topic, but in Genesis it said that either Abel or Cain left Adam and Eve and found a wife but his kids were cursed. If Adam and Eve were the first and only other humans in the beginning, then who was his wife he found?

The first mentioned children of Adam and Eve was Cain (the eldest) and Abel. In due time, Cain murdered Abel. Immediately afterward Cain left his parents. In the narrative it mentions that Cain built a city, and took a wife.

We who are used to reading books that give every sequential detail, wonder then if Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel were truly the only living people on the earth. But the Jews don't think the way we do. Being inspired by God they write the main details. And we are left with figuring out how to get from point A to point B.

Adam and Eve continued to have other children after those two were born. Or it's even possible that those two were not the very first born. And only mentioned in the narrative for a life lesson purpose. After all, no girls were specifically mentioned at any time in the narrative, but surely they had to have had some.

So yes, the Bible does mention or not mention concerning importance regarding telling the story of redemption.

Last but not least, is it true at one point Angels mated with humans?

Rebellious, disobedient, fallen angels. They sought to make a race of humans through which to contaminate the gene pool of humanity. And thus to destroy God's plan to bring forth the Redeemer.
Every point in the narrative will give a connection with God's ultimate purpose of redemption. A why things happen.

Is it true that when Jesus died on the cross, he actually went to heck and did something there that had something to do with the angels who mated with the humans?

A very important part of redemption is for Jesus to go to hell, the place where all unredeemed sinners go after death. His reason for going there is so that we who believe in his act of redemption in our behalf, would not end up there.

While in the region of the damned, Jesus went to speak to certain individuals there. It is not known why he went, or what he said. But it was important that he go. They had to have known of the commotion that earlier occurred in other areas of hell. The party of the damned going on when they thought they'd won, and had the son of God in their midst, forsaken by God and condemned to hell with them. That is until God spoke into the depths of hell, his words thundering into the corridors, saying, "That is enough!.. Let all the angels of God worship Him!" Jesus status of righteous sonship had been restored to him. Having set it aside and taking our sin upon him while on the cross.

So, we are left to speculate about certain details. Perhaps he did speak to those involved in the attempt to contaminate the gene pool. Perhaps he stood there and said something like, "I just wanted to let you boys know that your plan didn't work."

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[sculleywr]

I'm trying to understand something.

On the History Channel, every once in a while they explore religious topics, christian topics too.

What was interesting, is I first heard of the books of Jesus' childhood by the History channel. There were books about when Jesus was a child left out of the Bible and there were also books about some of the apostles left out of the Holy Bible.

The only book that is truly Apostolic that I am aware of which records portions of Christ's childhood is the Protoevangelion of James. The authenticity for the authorship of this portion comes from Origen, though certain other Christian authors of the first three centuries also reference quotes from this book before Origen, which can place its authorship pretty accurately to within the time of James.

This will take a little while, so you might want to grab a coffee or a sandwich.

There are several other works of the Apostles that were not included in the canon. Several, including three in particular, are considered part of Tradition in the Eastern Church, but are not considered Scripture. The Canon of Scripture, however, has a very complicated and convoluted history.

The first attempt at canonization was not even attempted by a Christian, but rather by a Gnostic heretic named Marcian. He included a couple of books of Paul's and portions of the Gospel of Luke.

This heretical canon made the church wake up and get to work on its own canon. It took them three hundred more years to really nail down a canon such that they not only had a list (the list of the 27 of the New Testament being in the 367 AD letter of St. Athanasius, while the 49 book canon of the Old Testament was from the Septuagint 200 years prior to Christ), but that list was accepted by the Church.

The Old Testament was 49 books long until the Protestant Reformation claimed falsely that they were not truly Scripture. This led to the doctrines of the 400 years of silence taught in Baptist churches today.

So okay, I understand that the Bible was taken from the Hebrew or Jewish people and the Greek and Roman people and translated into English and to a way in which English speaking people could understand it. This was done by King James.

By the time of King James, there were at least three English versions available, if not more.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Someone here said the Nicean Counsil did not edit the bible.
Does anyone here believe that ?

The Nicene Council didn't edit the Bible. No serious historian, scholar, or anyone with a working knowledge of these things believes that the council had anything to do with the Biblical Canon.

The bishops met at Nicea to discuss the theological controversy known as Arianism, named after an Egyptian presbyter named Arius. That is why the bishops gathered, and that is what the bishops discussed.

They did discuss other matters, for example they put into effect certain regulations concerning how clergy are to behave, things of that nature. You can read these things here, these are the Canons of the Council of Nicea. There are twenty of them, and none are about the Canon of Scripture.

Furthermore the bishops agreed to a formal dating method for the celebration of Easter. The bishops wrote a short letter to the Church in Alexandria, Egypt explaining that they agreed that their method of dating Easter should be embraced by the whole Church. At this time, virtually all Christians were already celebrating Easter at the same time anyway, Nicea simply formalized it.

So we have three things Nicea did

1) Put forward a creed stating that Jesus was of the same nature as God the Father.

2) Put out twenty canons concerning Church regulation.

3) Formalized the method of how to calculate Easter.

~fin

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marahuta]

The reason books are not accepted as scripture is because their authenticity is in question. Many people back then set out ot right their own versions of what happened and very often attributed them to the Apostles and other important people. You can't just go around accepting anything that mentions Jesus in it.

 

[7he4uthor]

-----

 

[pshun2404]

7

Why do you insist on listening to the heretical and apostate and reject the truth? Do you really think the heavens and the earth were created for the sake of James? Listen my friend...the Vatican nor modern scholars after the rudiments of the world are responsible for pointing to why these books are NOT the word of God. The first mention of the gnostic forgery called the Gospel of Thomas is in the 2nd century and the book was then rejected by all the churches the Apostles founded. The "Vatican" wasn't even a thought in the mind of Roman Christians let alone the church.

There were some books accepted by some (mostly what we cal the Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books included in the LXX and the reason they were nor accepted bt many was because the Jewish leaders themselves did not accept these as God's word but as additional literature. They knew as we do now that there were errors in these books. Errors of fact and history (not all of them but many). The Book of Enoch was accepted by some and not others, but aside from that, the eastern church always included them as part of the collected writings but only centuries later (along with Rome) accepted them as Canonical (but this was 100's of years later).

Your quote from Thomas is a fraud as many sayings in that work. It is a fraudulent gnostic distortion with a forged name associated with it. In other words the authors were liars and frauds...doesn't the Holy Spirit let you see the differences? Like Jesus followers believed that males and females were equal in Christ (pne) but this gnostic thom-foolery teaches the males must become the female and the female the male. Christ never taught that, nor any of the Apostles. You are mixng the word with heretical mysticism and the dark arts and it is going to lead you to more and more error if you place any stock in these things. I am telling you this because I care 7. I care about your soul. I drop of infectious puss can spoil a whole barrel of clean water. Believe God! Half truths just because they seem reasonable to our mind are still lies.

As for God not speaking to anyone today, that is not what most believe. What they believe and teach (and it is true) is that God is not going to give additional revelation today which contradicts what Christ and the Apostles taught. The revelation unto salvation is complete. Now we may debate the fine points or what some of these things mean but God is giving nothing new or anything contradictory. Those churches which teach and require as doctrine beliefs which contradict the Scriptures are in gross error and are endangering the eternal expectancy of their flocks (May the Lord help them).

Paul