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

[pshun2404]

7, you said, “Rev. states that anyone who takes away from the words shall lose their name in the book of life. Anyone who adds to them the plagues shall be added to their life.”

But what it really says is whoever takes away from the words of THIS BOOK (there are 66 in all and the grammar proves this to be speaking about Revelations)

“So the devil whose name is already removed and who already suffers the plagues has nothing to lose by changing the bible ... commiting fraud with Gods word. This must be obvious to bible readers."

The name of the angel we call Satan has not had his name removed…it was never given. The Roman Catholic adaptation Lucifer is an error based on a faulty translation of the words lux ferre but otherwise we know his name because Jesus says he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (Beli-yah-‘al in Hebrew) and he has no power (zero, zilch) change the Bible (men do that having the power to print whatever words they wish on a page).

“I am not casting stones (I hope) only thinking out loud when I say many today believe the Vatican (and/or pope) is the devil/djall/antichrist/etc. So such an entity with power to publish and distribute books said to be gods word has unfathomable potential to decive billions.”

The problem here is 7 that we have too many fragments, quotes, and documents from before there were popes and vaticans and we can know what these copies of the earlier texts actually say and 95% of them are in agreement.


“It is mentally healthy to ask questions, and educational to recieve answers. Many have questions about the bible.”

You can PM me one question at a time and I will answer them all.

“The next question is if the Vatican removes a book [in this case The Book of Enoch] from the bible[bringing the number down to 66] WHY do all the OTHER churches remove it also?”

The Vatican did not remove the Book of Enoch because most collections did not even include it. Their controversy was over the Old Testament deuteron-canonical books and they elected to include (not exclude) them. It is in the Ethiopian text and was read in Qumran (among the Zadikite priests) some early collections have the Shepherd others Clement's first letter to the Corinthians but Clement never claimed he was writing what should be scripture nor the author of the Shepherd. Was the Book of Enoch collected sayings from Enoch of old? We just cannot say for sure but Enoch means the Seer so this could indicate other possibilities. The references to the Watchers in 1 Enoch must be forgeries or lies or legend because Enoch was translated long before these events (see what I mean?). Because of errors in fact like these the book was rejected but may in fact contain some of his teachings passed down. However because some are obvious provavble anachronisms we cannot be sure and thus must reject it. I hope this has helped.

“Praise God, Faith in God, God Speed, God Bless.”

Here is where we totally agree…

Paul

 

[sculleywr]

Very good news.
Do you have any more of this kind of information ?

Thomas wrote:

Aside from the fact that the Church has never considered true, more did the apostles actually write, the "gospels" outside of the four in the Bible, not really.

The reason the protoevangelion of James was not included was not because an apostle didn't write it, but because it didn't add anything necessary to salvation that wasn't already mentioned in the other four gospels.

The reason the so called gospels if Thomas, Mary, Peter, and the others were not included is because they were not written by the Apostles.

 

[Radagast]

The reason the protoevangelion of James was not included was not because an apostle didn't write it, but because it didn't add anything necessary to salvation that wasn't already mentioned in the other four gospels.

In fairness, some people think James was written in the 2nd century, after James was dead.

Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pshun2404]

In fairness, you are correct. For the first 3 centuries many local bodies questioned and some rejected the legitimacy of James, Jude, II Peter, and/or II and III John.

But you know what I found interesting? If one were to completely cut all these out of the Bible (which I did theoretically just for the exercise) it does not effect one single doctrine or fact of our faith (accept possibly one's opinion of Genesis 6). Just some trivia...no major belief or doctrine depends on any of these as its primary source (Hallelujah and Amen).

Paul

 

[sculleywr]

In fairness, some people think James was written in the 2nd century, after James was dead.

Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some scholars also think that the Apostles invented the resurrection story to make their claim that Christ is God credible.

There is no claims against it by people, and Ignatius and Irenaeus both refer to teachings exclusive to it in their writings. The second century has no complaints against the Protoevangelion and, in fact, the first time in history that someone challenges the accepted Apostolic origin of it is many centuries down the road from it.

 

[pshun2404]

Plus we have 1st century inscriptions from grave markers and bone boxes that say things like "He is Risen" which totally proves their theory amiss.

Paul

 

[Radagast]

There is no claims against it by people, and Ignatius and Irenaeus both refer to teachings exclusive to it in their writings. The second century has no complaints against the Protoevangelion and, in fact, the first time in history that someone challenges the accepted Apostolic origin of it is many centuries down the road from it.

Well, if Irenaeus had believed it Apostolic, surely he'd have included it among the canonical gospels?

 

[Radagast]

Plus we have 1st century inscriptions from grave markers and bone boxes that say things like "He is Risen" which totally proves their theory amiss.

Which theory?

 

[sculleywr]

Well, if Irenaeus had believed it Apostolic, surely he'd have included it among the canonical gospels?

He didn't make any canon. He only identified the writers of the four gospels. I never said it was a gospel, only that it was apostolic.

 

[pshun2404]

Which theory?

The theory that "Some scholars also think that the Apostles invented the resurrection story to make their claim that Christ is God credible."

Paul

 

[sculleywr]

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.

I would add that the other reason a book may not be in Scripture is that it doesn't include anything necessary for salvation that isn't already covered in the other scriptures.

 

[Marahuta]

I would add that the other reason a book may not be in Scripture is that it doesn't include anything necessary for salvation that isn't already covered in the other scriptures.

possibly

 

[7he4uthor]

----

 

[sculleywr]

thats quite a view !

what about revelation/apocalypse ?

youre reply made me think
what purpose do prophesies have in salvation ?

a question ive asked myself b4

Well, there are going to be people who experience the prophesies of the "Day of the Lord". In fact, in the Orthodox Church, the lack of a Rapture Theology (which amounts to a second coming before the second coming) leads us to teach that the Church will continue through that time. The events in prophecy will be much more recognizable by those who experience them. We on earth can only see them in prospect, whereas the Church of the last days will be able to look at them in retrospect, giving a much clearer understanding of them, in the same way that the Jews before Christ did not expect a suffering Servant, but a glorious King who would bring political power back to Jerusalem. Our attempts to interpret the Revelation of St. John will always be limited to our knowledge of the events prophesied. When the events happen, it will be clear to the Church. And the Church will be able to use that knowledge for the salvation of her members through Christ Jesus.

 

[someguy14]

All goodness is of God alone.

 

[Marahuta]

To further the evidence that books are denied entry into the Bible due to authentication reasons I bring forth the Gospel of Barnabas.

The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript.
Muslims often quote this gospel as evidense that Jesus never claimed divinity since it goes against the modern teaching of the church. There are however a few problems.

1. The earliest document mentioning a Barnabas gospel which is generally agreed to correspond with the one found in the two known manuscripts is reported to be contained in Morisco manuscript BNM MS 9653 in Madrid, written about 1634 by Ibrahim al-Taybili (a muslim) in Tunisia.
2. The fact that it has been shown that the writings in the Gospel seem to be similar to Dante's works and there have also been noted a range of textual similarities between passages in the Gospel of Barnabas, and variously the texts of a series of late medieval vernacular harmonies of the four canonical gospels
3. Apart from debying divinity, Jesus in this gospel also denies being the messiah.
Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" [Jesus answered] "Muhammed is his blessed name".
—Chapter 97

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah."
—42:2

4. The gospel gos against the Jewsih scriptures as well. In this gospel the messiah is no longer an Israelite, but an Ishmaelite.

Whereupon Jesus said: "Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: 'God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies.' If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac."
—Barnabas 43:10

If I work iniquity, reprove me, and God will love you, because you shall be doing his will, but if none can reprove me of sin it is a sign that you are not sons of Abraham as you call yourselves, nor are you incorporate with that head wherein Abraham was incorporate. As God lives, so greatly did Abraham love God, that he not only brake in pieces the false idols and forsook his father and mother, but was willing to slay his own son in obedience to God. The high priest answered: "This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?" Jesus answered: "The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed." Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: "Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God."
—Barnabas 208:1-2


(also note that in the Torah the Ishmaelites are known as deserters of God and idolaters. They nolonger love God)

Now tell me, does this gospel seem authentic enough to be added in the Bible ?

 

[Armistead14]

Most people have no clue how the bible came into place. There were no printing presses then, if you wanted a letter, you copied it from someone else. Imagine someone wanted a letter of Paul, he or a Scribe had to copy it. Often a Scribe copying would make changes, fix what he thought was a previous mistake, etc..That person would take his copy and someone else would copy it. This was done 1000's of times, each with changes. What few pieces of fragments we have were copies of copies. Today we have several thousand manuscripts, most from 400AD onward. I studied them in bible college and the same book can differ greatly. As time went by the early church put books together by studying all the scripts, comparing errors, etc., held councils and started creating books. However, as history evolved, more manuscripts would be found, more councils, more changes, etc...This went on for most of church history, still today different bibles make revisions. Fact is, we have much more info today, comparison tools, etc...

Add to that you had numerous people writing their own letters based on their experiences and these were also copied numerous times and passed on. In the early church you had numerous gospels, letters, writings from different sects, each with different beliefs. This caused a lot of fighting in the church, moreso as the church became a political power. It was during this time church fathers often fought, declared other fathers as heretics, etc., as each sought to push their beliefs. Many books in the bible evolved and were added more on did it fit a certain belief of the period. Take the Pastoral Epistiles by Paul, well, it's clear none of them were written by Paul, but in Paul's name to push whoever wrote thems viewpoints.

In the end the more powerful Fathers won out as councils argued, again, often labeling earlier father as heretics and we entered into a bloody period. Like all things, certain people got together deciding the church had to have one view, doctrine was established, until later another group decided it needed more changing. They fought through many letters, what was right or not and picked what should be part of canon. They picked from 1000's of scripts, many letters and put together a theme. If they needed to make something fit a theme, they simply made the changes.

The bigger issue became interpretation, moreso under the political power of Rome. As scripture evolved, beliefs evolved. So churches split, rewrote scipture a tad here, a tad there to fit what they believed, resulting in the 100's of denominations we have today.

Today, we do as they did then, still argue, still debate, still correct and translate.....

 

[7he4uthor]

----

 

[Armistead14]

All books deserve to be read. That is the key question.

No bible, written, or oral tradition is required where God lives breathes and speaks this love/creation.

The above I agree with. Certainly all books should be studied and compared. I've read 1000's of scripts, letters, etc.....I never read anywhere that God said later men deciding what letters or scripts could be inspired as the only ones.

 

[someguy14]

Thank you for the books we have.