working4christ2

Mighty Pawn · #1 Nov 10, '11, 3:38 pm

I've just recently finished reading for the first time the books that are in the Catholic Bible that are not oncluded in the Protestant Bible. I enjoyed them very much, especially 1st and 2nd Maccabees (I'm a history buff) , Wisdom, and Sirach.

Surprisingly, I had no problem accepting them as inspired and that they should have been included in all Bibles. From what I've read, until around the 19th century even Protestant Bibles included them, although in a a separated section noting that even though they are not inspired they are of value historically and in teaching.

Anyway, a few days ago, while browsing the Christian section of my favorite used book store, I found a book titled "the lost books of the Bible. I bought it and find the books I've read so far to be facinating. Some of them contradict the Gospels in certain things, such a Jesus being born in a cave just outside of Bethlehem, but for the most part they closely parallel the Gospels.

The big difference between the gospels and these lost books were the additions of events that are not contained in the Bible-accounts of Mary allowing others to hold Baby Jesus or washing in the bath water Mary use to bathe Jesus and being healed-Epistles attributed toBarabas, Nicodemus, and others.

Even though these books were eventually rejected as canonical, in many of the editor's introductions to each book the editor states specific names of early Church Fathers that quote from these lost books. John 21:25 also says that Jesus did many other things that if all were told," I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

What are you're thoughts on these books? While not being "inspired" books, could they,in fact, record some of the other things Jesus did? Are they worth reading? Could they be used to bring a more complete picture of who Jesus was and what He did or are they fiction like today's authors write historical fiction?

Here is a list of the books in "the Lost Books of the Bible" .

-Mary
-The Protevangelion
-1st Infancy
-2nd Infancy
-Christ & Abgarus
-Nicodemus
-The Apostle's Creed
-Laodiceans
-Paul & Seneca
-Paul & Thecla
-1st Clement
-2nd Clement
-Barnabus
-The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
-Magnesians
-Trallians
-Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
-Philadelphians
-Smyrnaeans
-Epistle of Polycarp tohthe Philippians
-1st Hermas--Visions
-2nd Hermas--Commands
-3rd Hermas--Similitudes
-Letters of Herod and Pilate
-the lost gosple according to Peter
- the lost gosple accourding to Thomas.

I haven't read all of them yet but what are your thoughts of the importance of these books and their usefulness?

Publisher · #2 Nov 10, '11, 3:44 pm

"Lost Books of the Bible" and "Forgotten Books of Eden" are fairly old editions of Christian and Jewish Apocrypha.

There is ANOTHER section of writings found in the "Pre-Nicene New Testament" by Robert M. Price.....a collection of those books found in the New Testament...but an additional 27 texts used in the first centuries of Christianity as scripture by some churches spread throughout the empire.

A good Bible that gives some insights into the various canons of the Bible between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant groups is the "Oxford Annontated Bible/Expanded 4th Edition". This Bible was originally published as the "Common Bible" in the 1970's. It's the Revised Standard Version of the Bible that includes all those books that the Orthodox include but the Catholics do not...as well as those Catholic books which the Protestants do not included.....with a history of each book...very informative.

Some of the NT Aprocrypha from the "Lost Books of the Bible" are the printed source of some unique Catholic beliefs concerning Mary...the "Protoevangelion of James" is one such book that has heavily influenced Mariology in the Catholic church.

SteveVH · #3 Nov 10, '11, 3:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Pawn

I've just recently finished reading for the first time the books that are in the Catholic Bible that are not oncluded in the Protestant Bible. I enjoyed them very much, especially 1st and 2nd Maccabees (I'm a history buff) , Wisdom, and Sirach.

Surprisingly, I had no problem accepting them as inspired and that they should have been included in all Bibles. From what I've read, until around the 19th century even Protestant Bibles included them, although in a a separated section noting that even though they are not inspired they are of value historically and in teaching.

Anyway, a few days ago, while browsing the Christian section of my favorite used book store, I found a book titled "the lost books of the Bible. I bought it and find the books I've read so far to be facinating. Some of them contradict the Gospels in certain things, such a Jesus being born in a cave just outside of Bethlehem, but for the most part they closely parallel the Gospels.

The big difference between the gospels and these lost books were the additions of events that are not contained in the Bible-accounts of Mary allowing others to hold Baby Jesus or washing in the bath water Mary use to bathe Jesus and being healed-Epistles attributed toBarabas, Nicodemus, and others.

Even though these books were eventually rejected as canonical, in many of the editor's introductions to each book the editor states specific names of early Church Fathers that quote from these lost books. John 21:25 also says that Jesus did many other things that if all were told," I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

What are you're thoughts on these books? While not being "inspired" books, could they,in fact, record some of the other things Jesus did? Are they worth reading? Could they be used to bring a more complete picture of who Jesus was and what He did or are they fiction like today's authors write historical fiction?

Here is a list of the books in "the Lost Books of the Bible" .

-Mary
-The Protevangelion
-1st Infancy
-2nd Infancy
-Christ & Abgarus
-Nicodemus
-The Apostle's Creed
-Laodiceans
-Paul & Seneca
-Paul & Thecla
-1st Clement
-2nd Clement
-Barnabus
-The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
-Magnesians
-Trallians
-Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
-Philadelphians
-Smyrnaeans
-Epistle of Polycarp tohthe Philippians
-1st Hermas--Visions
-2nd Hermas--Commands
-3rd Hermas--Similitudes
-Letters of Herod and Pilate
-the lost gosple according to Peter
- the lost gosple accourding to Thomas.

I haven't read all of them yet but what are your thoughts of the importance of these books and their usefulness?

Since it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon of Scripture (including the deuterocanonical books) and rejected the other writings that were circulating at that time, I would be very careful. We had all better hope that the Church was led by the Holy Spirit in determining the canon. If that is true, then there is a reason the others weren't included. I have noticed that you included the "Apostles Creed" as a book, rather than just a creed and have also included Clement's letters. Obviously I have no quarrel with any of those, but they cannot be said to be "inspired" writings, even though they are free from error. The greatest danger I see is when a writing is mostly true, but contains a little error. It becomes more difficult to distinguish error from truth. I see no problem in reading them it they are kept in the proper perspective.

PJM · #4 Nov 10, '11, 4:20 pm

Quote:

=Mighty Pawn;8560993]I've just recently finished reading for the first time the books that are in the Catholic Bible that are not oncluded in the Protestant Bible. I enjoyed them very much, especially 1st and 2nd Maccabees (I'm a history buff) , Wisdom, and Sirach.

Surprisingly, I had no problem accepting them as inspired and that they should have been included in all Bibles. From what I've read, until around the 19th century even Protestant Bibles included them, although in a a separated section noting that even though they are not inspired they are of value historically and in teaching.

Anyway, a few days ago, while browsing the Christian section of my favorite used book store, I found a book titled "the lost books of the Bible. I bought it and find the books I've read so far to be facinating. Some of them contradict the Gospels in certain things, such a Jesus being born in a cave just outside of Bethlehem, but for the most part they closely parallel the Gospels.

The big difference between the gospels and these lost books were the additions of events that are not contained in the Bible-accounts of Mary allowing others to hold Baby Jesus or washing in the bath water Mary use to bathe Jesus and being healed-Epistles attributed toBarabas, Nicodemus, and others.

Even though these books were eventually rejected as canonical, in many of the editor's introductions to each book the editor states specific names of early Church Fathers that quote from these lost books. John 21:25 also says that Jesus did many other things that if all were told," I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

What are you're thoughts on these books? While not being "inspired" books, could they,in fact, record some of the other things Jesus did? Are they worth reading? Could they be used to bring a more complete picture of who Jesus was and what He did or are they fiction like today's authors write historical fiction?

Here is a list of the books in "the Lost Books of the Bible" .

-Mary
-The Protevangelion
-1st Infancy
-2nd Infancy
-Christ & Abgarus
-Nicodemus
-The Apostle's Creed
-Laodiceans
-Paul & Seneca
-Paul & Thecla
-1st Clement
-2nd Clement
-Barnabus
-The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
-Magnesians
-Trallians
-Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
-Philadelphians
-Smyrnaeans
-Epistle of Polycarp tohthe Philippians
-1st Hermas--Visions
-2nd Hermas--Commands
-3rd Hermas--Similitudes
-Letters of Herod and Pilate
-the lost gosple according to Peter
- the lost gosple accourding to Thomas.

I haven't read all of them yet but what are your thoughts of the importance of these books and their usefulness?

CAUTION!

My friend; until you FIND the singular truth of every issue; it would be extremely prudent to take great care in what you choose to read and even greater care in what you choose to accept and believe. WHY?

There logically can be only a single truth for every precisely stated issue. 1 + 1 must = 2.
Up must be up and down must be down. Either the Bible is the inspired word of god or it is not. it simply cannot be both. Such would mean it has zero value in learning about God and what God teaches and demands.

Read the Bible itself front to back before seeking other sources. If Fact MY RECOMMENDATION is to read the New testament first; because not doing so can easily lead to many incorrect conclusions and a wrong understanding of the persons who are God.

Then read the early fathers on various issues, and then go on to the various church councils.

Because the Catholic Faith is the one true faith and the ONLY one founded by God Himself, it seems prudent to check it out toughly first. Keep these facts in mind as your investigate.

Never once did God ever permit belief in more than one God [triune]; or more than Only One set of faith beliefs; or more than One religious body [Church]. In the OT this was the Hebrew nation. Because so many of them failed to recognize the long awaited Messiah; God: Jesus Christ; thee messiah, voided the Old testament covenants and created the new Covenanting in His Own Blood.

The Bible is a Catholic Book. The CC collected what was to be included [INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF], and with MUCH debate Guided by the Holy Spirit chose ONLY the 46 OT books, and actually the entire NT is authored exclusively by men known to be Catholics.

Today’s CC is the ONLY God founded, God guided, and God guarded Faith in the history of the World. 'The Way," became Christians, which in 110 AD became Catholics. This is more than ONE THOUSAND YEARS before Anglican and other Protestant communions came into existence.

The CC alone has the seven Sacraments all instituted by Christ. Therefore ONLY the CC has God REALLY, Truly, and Substantially Present in our time, and KNOWN forgiveness [not just hoping, guessing, but knowing! Forgiveness of our sins.

For all of these reasons and a whole lot more; it is PRUDENT not to look for trouble; lest you find it.

NONE of the books you mention are recognized or approved by the Cc or any major Protestant communions for the precise reason that they ARE NOT inspired and are NOT to be trusted. So HOLD off reading them until you have a MORE SOLID understanding of Christianity and Catholism.

God Bless you,
Pat

ConstantineTG · #5 Nov 10, '11, 4:23 pm

They're not "lost". The Protoevangelium of James, for example, was considered to be included in the canon but was not. But there are still a number of traditions, especially in the East, that follow what was written in there. For example, on the 19th we are celebrating the Great Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple. Its not in the bible, but its in the Protoevangelium. And its been part of Byzantine tradition for a long time.

Also, where else do you think we got the names of the parents of Mary?

ConstantineTG · #6 Nov 10, '11, 4:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

The CC alone has the seven Sacraments all instituted by Christ. Therefore ONLY the CC has God REALLY, Truly, and Substantially Present in our time, and KNOWN forgiveness [not just hoping, guessing, but knowing! Forgiveness of our sins.

Er, the CC teaches that the Orthodox Churches have them as well

Mighty Pawn · #7 Nov 10, '11, 6:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

CAUTION!

My friend; until you FIND the singular truth of every issue; it would be extremely prudent to take great care in what you choose to read and even greater care in what you choose to accept and believe. WHY?

There logically can be only a single truth for every precisely stated issue. 1 + 1 must = 2.
Up must be up and down must be down. Either the Bible is the inspired word of god or it is not. it simply cannot be both. Such would mean it has zero value in learning about God and what God teaches and demands.

Read the Bible itself front to back before seeking other sources. If Fact MY RECOMMENDATION is to read the New testament first; because not doing so can easily lead to many incorrect conclusions and a wrong understanding of the persons who are God.

Then read the early fathers on various issues, and then go on to the various church councils.

Because the Catholic Faith is the one true faith and the ONLY one founded by God Himself, it seems prudent to check it out toughly first. Keep these facts in mind as your investigate.

Never once did God ever permit belief in more than one God [triune]; or more than Only One set of faith beliefs; or more than One religious body [Church]. In the OT this was the Hebrew nation. Because so many of them failed to recognize the long awaited Messiah; God: Jesus Christ; thee messiah, voided the Old testament covenants and created the new Covenanting in His Own Blood.

The Bible is a Catholic Book. The CC collected what was to be included [INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF], and with MUCH debate Guided by the Holy Spirit chose ONLY the 46 OT books, and actually the entire NT is authored exclusively by men known to be Catholics.

Today’s CC is the ONLY God founded, God guided, and God guarded Faith in the history of the World. 'The Way," became Christians, which in 110 AD became Catholics. This is more than ONE THOUSAND YEARS before Anglican and other Protestant communions came into existence.

The CC alone has the seven Sacraments all instituted by Christ. Therefore ONLY the CC has God REALLY, Truly, and Substantially Present in our time, and KNOWN forgiveness [not just hoping, guessing, but knowing! Forgiveness of our sins.

For all of these reasons and a whole lot more; it is PRUDENT not to look for trouble; lest you find it.

NONE of the books you mention are recognized or approved by the Cc or any major Protestant communions for the precise reason that they ARE NOT inspired and are NOT to be trusted. So HOLD off reading them until you have a MORE SOLID understanding of Christianity and Catholism.

God Bless you,
Pat

I respect you oppinion, Pat.

Although I've read the Bible multiple time these past 2 1/2 years and know it very well, I've been interpreting it though Protestant lenses. Reading it again through Catholic lenses and comparing the two views plus studying the extra books in the Catholic Bible that I've just read for the first time is a lot of to keep me busy for a while.

If I believe that the Bible is directly inspired by God and the Holy Spirit directed the the process of deciding the books it should contain, which I do, then of course I do NOT believe these othe books are inspired so I will treat them as interesting reading until I know the way Catholics view the Bible and their doctrins as well as I know the the various doctrines of of the Protestant denominations.

I'm reading "confessions" by St. Augustine right now and getting a lot from it. I relate with his youth years before God found him very very well. Lol

Tsuwano · #8 Nov 10, '11, 6:12 pm

There are no lost books of the Bible. There are writings which were accepted as part of the canon by the early Christian Church and writings which were rejected. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit inspired the early Church to remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus and to the experience the disciples had of him. Thus, it stands to reason that some early writings are rejected while others are accepted. Some writings reflect our beliefs and experiences of the Lord more accurately than others.

Oldtimer_7 · #9 Nov 10, '11, 6:36 pm

I agree with Tsuwano. There were many writings in the first centuries of Christendom and many understandings of what Jesus meant and who He was. Ebionites, Marcionites, Monophysites, and Gnostics were just a few of the groups that emerged. Some of their writings have survived. Some were influential, as others have pointed out, and other writings obscure. We know of other groups only from refutations of their doctrines made by early Church Fathers. Claiming that these books were lost is historically correct. The Nag Hammadi library is one excellent example of this. Saying they were part of the Bible is not accurate. If there are books that could claim that title, it would be The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, which both were bound in some of the early texts. On the other hand, the Revelation of John was absent in some of the earliest witnesses. By the authors' criteria, which of the last three would fit the category?

pablope · #10 Nov 10, '11, 11:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Pawn

I've just recently finished reading for the first time the books that are in the Catholic Bible that are not oncluded in the Protestant Bible. I enjoyed them very much, especially 1st and 2nd Maccabees (I'm a history buff) , Wisdom, and Sirach.
What are you're thoughts on these books? While not being "inspired" books, could they,in fact, record some of the other things Jesus did? Are they worth reading? Could they be used to bring a more complete picture of who Jesus was and what He did or are they fiction like today's authors write historical fiction?

I haven't read all of them yet but what are your thoughts of the importance of these books and their usefulness?

As has been suggested...be careful with what you read....

Here is a website which contains several early writings...http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/.

PJM · #11 Nov 11, '11, 10:03 am

Quote:

=ConstantineTG;8561143]Er, the CC teaches that the Orthodox Churches have them as well

I included them in my post by not specifyinh ROMAN CAtholics

God Bless,
Pat

PJM · #12 Nov 11, '11, 11:16 am

Quote:

=Mighty Pawn;8561487]I respect you oppinion, Pat.

Although I've read the Bible multiple time these past 2 1/2 years and know it very well, I've been interpreting it though Protestant lenses. Reading it again through Catholic lenses and comparing the two views plus studying the extra books in the Catholic Bible that I've just read for the first time is a lot of to keep me busy for a while.

If I believe that the Bible is directly inspired by God and the Holy Spirit directed the the process of deciding the books it should contain, which I do, then of course I do NOT believe these othe books are inspired so I will treat them as interesting reading until I know the way Catholics view the Bible and their doctrins as well as I know the the various doctrines of of the Protestant denominations.

I'm reading "confessions" by St. Augustine right now and getting a lot from it. I relate with his youth years before God found him very very well. Lol

Yea, been there and done that too

Just take care it what you choose to read. There is a GREAT deal of wrong information; some of it hateful, out there.

God Bless,
Love and prayers,
Pat

pablope · #13 Nov 11, '11, 11:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Pawn

I respect you oppinion, Pat.

I'm reading "confessions" by St. Augustine right now and getting a lot from it. I relate with his youth years before God found him very very well. Lol

And after reading "confessions"....may I recommend the Perfect Joy of St. Francis.

Publisher · #14 Nov 11, '11, 2:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pablope

And after reading "confessions"....may I recommend the Perfect Joy of St. Francis.

"The Reluctant Saint" by Donald Spoto is an excellent read about Francis.

Publisher · #15 Nov 11, '11, 4:11 pm

But to get back to the OP thread....I highly recommend "Pre-Nicean New Testament" by Robert Price....he gives a history of how the canon was formed with a different slant than what conservative history would say. It's a different approach....and to me is much more compelling than the "sanitary sacred story" we have been taught......another good book is by Bart Erhman..."Lost Scriptures"....companion to "Lost Christianities".....early writings used a scripture by early Christians and variant understndings of various Christian groups who eventulayy were absorbed into "orhotdox/catholic" Christianity...or who faded into obscurity.

working4christ2

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Chronological Gospels LIVE! with Michael Rood-- looke at "The Lost Books of the Bible" with patrick j miron and the singular truth

No comments:

Post a Comment