It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Biblical Canon

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   

The biblical canon is not open for debate, it is a closed entity. A church that adds Thomas to its collection of scriptures would move outside the margins of orthodox Christianity and no well-known denomination has the slightest intention of adding Thomas to its scriptures...

home.epix.net...

Much to my disgust...WHY is the Bible closed to other scriptures and whats more, WHO decided the contents of the Bible?? hmm must be the Whore of Babylon again, eh?


the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha.
www.carm.org...


Actually, these are not the lost books of the Bible. We have all that God has ordained for us. A lot of people think the Bible isn't trustworthy and that many books were removed from it. That isn't the case. But, there were many ancient books around when the Bible was written.

Do we have all that GOD has ordained for us???
www.carm.org...
I guess if we were easily fooled, we would believe the above hype!


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.

www.carm.org...



Many ancient manuscripts have been lost, including some books that are quoted in the Bible, such as the Book of Jasher
oh how convenient!!
gbgm-umc.org...


We have compiled a list of over 500 books that have been associated with the Bible either through archeological research or historical documentation. There is no guarantee that the books listed here are inspired works, or genuine books actually included in original versions of writings used by, and considered true by the Early Christian Church. We do not list any books believed to be written after the corruption of doctrine by the Universal Church established by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century AD.

List

Please feel free to add to it.

My outrage is based on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has compiled the Bible, the same figure head who cruxified Jesus Christ. I personally would pay more heed to the books not included in the Bible.

I have just finished reading a book called The Jesus Papyrus and what an eye opener.
Much papyri, ancient manuscripts survived the depredations of time only by chance. Much to my surprise the Magdalen Papyrus survived, only fragments at that when you consider the Romans were doing their very best to stiffle it.



[edit on 13-10-2006 by NJE777]

[edit on 13-10-2006 by NJE777]




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Yes! So much treasure outside the leatherbound canon....

Lately, it seems to me, there is an increased exposure and availability of (I guess they are called) extant texts....

I have never let any one limit my education - God is my tutor and He does not limit the mind or the soul who trusts Him.

That guy from CARM, though - he's something else. Don't dare say on his forum that God loves us ALL and won't lose even one of us! You will be banned and (in his esteem which is = nil) condemned an apostate.

I've lived my life to the full as a apostate heretic! And I've already got a lot of 'armor' in my closet to wear in battle.


I've been compiling a database of texts (including the canon) and also prophecies such as Nostradamus and Cayce - I decided to call all the 'other' (such as pseudoepigraphia and apocrypha, blah blah) by the name 'Wilderness Texts.'

I think that fits. Fed in the wilderness and found to be a thriving vine without even a well nearby!


I don't think, though, that the omission of these writings is completely a thing that is a crime or sin against the people - perhaps it is part of the grand design - for you know what they say about weapons winding up in the wrong hands. I don't know how to explain.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

From cults to the New Age, people make all sorts of claims about how the Bible is missing books, books that help justify what they hope to believe.


says the CARM guy....

justifying what one hopes to believe has NOTHING to do with the source in which the justification is sought - it is a internal issue of the individual - and the CARM guy is just as much a victim as many others.

Golly.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Yeah,annie,I've been labeled a "heretic" many times as well.

One of the things that the "church" is designed to do is to keep you in the dark about many things. Fact is, many of the texts that are labeled "banned" by the "church" sits in the Vatican library. Isn't it funny that the very knowledge that the "church" wants to abstain from you, it has access to?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies.

What crap
Apparently this individual thinks that "praying for the dead" is wrong or something.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
If you click here
Lost books you will come to a page that lists all of the books that have been left out of the canon for various reasons. I suspect one of the biggest reasons is for the method of control.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38


That guy from CARM, though - he's something else. Don't dare say on his forum that God loves us ALL and won't lose even one of us! You will be banned and (in his esteem which is = nil) condemned an apostate.


... Now I feel I must say that just for predictibility and entertainment purposes! lol


I've been compiling a database of texts (including the canon) and also prophecies such as Nostradamus and Cayce - I decided to call all the 'other' (such as pseudoepigraphia and apocrypha, blah blah) by the name 'Wilderness Texts.'


Love Cayce...he is really something else, amazing how a lot of people dont even know about him.


Fed in the wilderness and found to be a thriving vine without even a well nearby!
So well put!


for you know what they say about weapons winding up in the wrong hands.


Absolutely, my thoughts in ETs thread left me feeling like I was contrary to scripture, well I ask and I am answered (as we all are, if we just ask!) and was freakin out quite a bit over my thoughts...well, I put it out there, = 'but, it is contrary to scripture (and hence GOD) '...and the reply was 'much of scripture is contrary to GOD'...I was
and then started to look into it. I couldnt believe the amount of books left out. Over 500 !!




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
If you click here
Lost books I suspect one of the biggest reasons is for the method of control.


Absolutely, what else could it be? When I looked at the list, I was like a kid in a candy store that had been blindfolded, once in the lollie shop, the blindfold came off and honestly, I just didnt know what to feast on first


In all seriousness, one of the books that was left out was the Book of Abraham, now farout, that book in line with geneology would be significant and YET it is ousted. My surprise :bnghd: was at the sheer amount of omitted texts. I was aware of the Book of Thomas, Enoch and Nag Hammadi and a few others; but 500? wow!

I love some of the reasons given, authoritative but out of time, heretical and not popular enough! oh and the 'lost but found again' reason is hilarious.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
You all need to remember that the bible when first compiled was not for the reading and interpretation of the regular follower.

The bible was only for the eyes of selected clergy men.

I imagine that even they understood the magnitude of problems if the bible was to fall on the hands of the population.

Perhaps because they knew that people would not be able to assimilate the information given without a high ranking clergy to guide them?

Perhaps because they knew that they just took what they wanted and left out what they didn’t people to know.

Or because it ensured them to have the power to control the masses.

Sometimes I wonder.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

My outrage is based on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has compiled the Bible,

The RCC didn't compile the bible. By the time the RCC was an independantly existing organization, the bible had been around for generations.

You can't add to a book like the bible because it breaks the logic of it being a holy book. If you can add stuff to it now, then, what exactly, everything before was incomplete or even wrong?

Also, lets be realistic here, its not like the church fathers willy nilly decided what goes in and what stays out. THere was already much agreement within the christian community as to what belonged to the bible, or as to what was authentically the work of the apostles. People didn't generally beleive that bizzare books like the gospel of Thomas were part of it. THe message was entirely different, based more on greek philosophy and esotericism, and, importantly, books like those weren't recognized by the known historical figures that were directly and personally taught by the apostles themselves.

I think that, if anything, we need seriously compelling reasons to include books like the gospel of Thomas and the like into the bible. We need to demonstrate their authenticity. The ones that are in the bible, since the people of the time accepted them, we tend to have to accept on that basis. But we need a serious reason to accept the ones that they reviewed and rejected as false.


queenannie
justifying what one hopes to believe has NOTHING to do with the source in which the justification is sought - it is a internal issue of the individual

I can perfectly understand a person reading, say, the gnostic gospels, and finding faith in them and following and acting on that faith. But its a different thing entirely to say that they are authentic gospels. A person doesn't need to even beleive in the gospels at all in order to objectively try to decide what texts are authentic or not, a person could be a zoroastrian from Tehran and do it no?

I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a heretic, so why try to say that some heretics are the 'true' orthodoxy? Why not recognize that these things were written by very spiritual, very pious, and well intentioned sages who wanted to educate and help people on the mysteries of the faith, but that they were on the outside of the orthodoxy or the apostolic tradition?


marg6043
You all need to remember that the bible when first compiled was not for the reading and interpretation of the regular follower.
The bible was only for the eyes of selected clergy men.

This was not until much later though. The gospels and letters were things that the early christians passed around and read at their meetings. Its only later that things cement and calcify into the sort of ritual system that we think of as being, say, the RCC from the blackest depths of the Dark Ages.

Perhaps because they knew that they just took what they wanted and left out what they didn’t people to know.

THink about it. You are a powerful prelate, you have the authority to decide what goes in the bible and what doesn't. WHY would you exclude the true message? I mean, if you KNOW that jesus was as he is implied in the gnostic gospels, a position that, realistically, you'd only come to because of your study and faith and divine inspiration on the matter, which is what would've made you a religious prelate in those times, why would you alter the message into something entirely false? An unbeleiver, sure, they could do it just to manipulate people, but a beleiver?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
It's like finding hidden treasure for me!

My database is going to require an additional hard drive.


CARM guy says:


The deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are "Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach or Ben Sira), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The canon of the Greek Orthodox community also includes 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix.


What is a 'Hebrew Bible,' I wonder (in CARM guy's estimation, that is)?

The Tanahk? The Torah? He (probably) doesn't realize that Jewish scriptures are studied in a different way than christians do bible study (usually to prove sermon points for CARM guy, no doubt).

The Jewish customs include weekly Parashat (Torah portions) which are an established schedule of passages that consecutively progress from Genesis 1:1 through Deuteronomy 34:12 over the course of a year (usually read on the Sabbath). And then, on various feast days and celebrations (such as Passover, Purim, etc) particular Torah Scrolls are read - also long standing traditions.

But the body of work that Jews have available to study HaShem (God) and their history is vast! They have the Talmud, the Mishna, (not necessarily about God but really their own many-centuries-worth expositions on the law) and there is also Maimodes (sp?) who was a Rabbi - and they have countless mythos and tales (fiction to illustrate things learned from Torah and Tanakh)....

Not to mention the wealth of oral tradition passed down - I find a lot on various websites...many things about the people in the OT that seem, to me, quite reliable since they don't contradict what is written in the OT.

Example: when Dinah was raped by Shechem and then he and his clan was massacred by Simeon and Levi - well, it seems Dinah was pregnant and the brothers wanted to kill the baby but Jacob said no because she was half Hebrew. So he put her out in a field with a little sign around her neck that had 'YHVH' written upon it - so that whomever found her would know her 'worth.'

Well what happened is, whoever found her (I can't recall) ended up taking her to the house of Potiphar in Egypt - and her name was Asenath - and when she grew up she ended up marrying Joseph! Her uncle!



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Oops, my bad! I just noticed that it was from Harper's that CARM guy got that last quote that I quoted.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I can perfectly understand a person reading, say, the gnostic gospels, and finding faith in them and following and acting on that faith. But its a different thing entirely to say that they are authentic gospels. A person doesn't need to even beleive in the gospels at all in order to objectively try to decide what texts are authentic or not, a person could be a zoroastrian from Tehran and do it no?

You know, Nygdan, I have no idea, really. I'm not one to worry about generally accepted ideas of authentic (in anything, not just sacred texts)...

I'm not sure that you understood what it was I was saying about justification...


I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a heretic, so why try to say that some heretics are the 'true' orthodoxy?

That's another one of those things with which my personal relationship is totally marginal - 'orthodoxy' to me is a PC word that means nothing in my world - I personally believe that there shouldn't be rules that box about God and people - each to his own - my personal convictions give me confidence that no man need try to keep things in some certain line. God is the boss because God is God. But I know my thinking is rare and odd.


Why not recognize that these things were written by very spiritual, very pious, and well intentioned sages who wanted to educate and help people on the mysteries of the faith, but that they were on the outside of the orthodoxy or the apostolic tradition?

I do! I think it's fine that they aren't in the canon - I don't need them to be, personally - and am kind of glad they are outside the accepted.

What I meant by my justification comment is that the canon is often used in the very same fashion that CARM guy described - to justify what one wants to believe. We can all do that with anything we want to - it is a dumb reason to give for them being extant, though - I like yours (above) much better.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
My outrage is based on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has compiled the Bible,


Thanks, I stand corrected, I am however, still doubtful. For example, the Magdelan Papyrus provided evidence of something dramatic, the institutional maturity of the early communities, so I dont necessarily believe, scripture was limited to clergy or the church. Now, I am certainly no expert in this area. So please, jump in and correct my line of thought at any time. Detailed studies of the MP demonstrate the precocious development of the Church The Jesus Papyrus which includes no fewer than four of Christs sayings and is the first material evidence that St Matthews Gospel was written during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. And it is suggested that 500 or more people would have handled the text. I am not sure if this fact is the general consensus? But, dating indicates this was written 40 years after the Cruxifiction or possibly even earlier. When you look at this and consider the political struggles during that time, indicates the (for me anyway) vulnerability of the New Testament. Claudius expulsion of Jews & Christians Leaders from Rome between AD 49 and AD 50, Nero's persecution, in AD 70, after nearly five years of military conflict Jerusalem fell to the Romans, the city and Temple were destroyed. I feel, the Romans had the power during this time and it served their cause to either destroy or control Christianity. The Romans were quite an unintegral nation with respect to history.


We need to demonstrate their authenticity. The ones that are in the bible, since the people of the time accepted them, we tend to have to accept on that basis. But we need a serious reason to accept the ones that they reviewed and rejected as false.


I agree to a point. I have just read the Testament of Abraham and the account of him meeting Death. Very informative reading, is there an book in the Bible that offers up what Abraham did? Perhaps there is, but I havent read it so far....so again, educate me if I have missed that. On grounds of clear illegitamcy, fine. If its obvious, but reasons such as heretic or out of time dont sit well with me. If GOD equates to time immemorial...then how is plausible that GOD would suddenly stop at a certain point in time?

oh wanted to add with respect to heretic, considering most feel John was on acid when he wrote Revelation...fine line, really. Perhaps Revelation is the extreme? I would love to read something that is on par with John...Ezekiel comes to mind




[edit on 13-10-2006 by NJE777]

[edit on 13-10-2006 by NJE777]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Considering that the Old Testament is based on Hebrew texts, perhaps you should look into why they removed or chose not to include certain books. The book of Enoch specifically was once an accepted book of teaching for the Hebrews, yet not only was it removed, but one rabbi even pronounced a curse on anyone that read it. Many of the books that have been omitted were selected for removal because their sources were questionable, they contained obvious errors, or they were propaganda.

If Rome had the power to change the Bible, then perhaps you can explain how the reformation occurred as Rome would have simply changed the bible again to disprove Martin Luther?

This entire thread is rife with ignorance and is nothing more then anti-Christian propaganda. Someone with an agenda to discredit Christianity by a lame attempt to discredit the bible, while failing to realize that the much of the same word is contained in the Hebrew and even Muslim texts.

Ps, good post Nygdan…

Edit to add:

Also the Church never tells anyone they cannot read those additional texts, as a matter of fact I was encouraged to read the Apocrypha and Pseudopigraphica, they simply say that those texts do not hold the same authority as the cannon. In other words, the opinion is that many of those texts are ok to read, but they do not add anything to main message of the Bible, which is salvation. Read away, as long as you keep in mind that they should be read with a critical eye, and not held in the same authority as recognized texts, as their sources are questionable.

The fact that the OP is not aware of this, shows me that the OP knows very little about Christianity and is only out trying to discredit it.

For this same reason it should be no big shocker to anyone, that is a Christian, that the Vatican Library holds these texts. All seminary students also have to read many of those texts during schooling, and there is nothing that the church finds inherently wrong with them. They simply don’t hold up or add to the already existing and more credible texts that are in the cannon. You are acting like there is some big conspiracy to hide these texts, but they have always been available.

[edit on 10/13/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Considering that the Old Testament is based on Hebrew texts, perhaps you should look into why they removed or chose not to include certain books. The book of Enoch specifically was once an accepted book of teaching for the Hebrews, yet not only was it removed, but one rabbi even pronounced a curse on anyone that read it. Many of the books that have been omitted were selected for removal because their sources were questionable, they contained obvious errors, or they were propaganda.


Thank you. You state many of the books were omitted based on suggested valid reasons...but that isnt ALL of them, is it? With all due respect, I question why so many have been left out. Perhaps, we all must accept that those with the power made the right choices for all humanity. I do, sincerely hope that the choices made were not made for sinister reasons. But, how are we to know?
Blind faith in Man??? I place my trust and faith in GOD and not in man.

I respect your defense, really I do and I thank you for it. But, as for being anti-Christian! that is something I am not, nor is my intention ill meant. I am a Christian, thank you.

Don't you ever consider that with all the conflict and dissent surrounding Jesus Christ at not only the time of birth, but during his life and cruxifiction that perhaps, just maybe, it has been diluted/manipulated? Do I just pick up my Holy Bible and say this is it?? Am I wrong to question?


If Rome had the power to change the Bible, then perhaps you can explain how the reformation occurred as Rome would have simply changed the bible again to disprove Martin Luther?


No, the powers that be, just shot him! I have a dream BANG...shortlived but the legacy lives on. Martin Luther King did not state his cause was based on divine intervention. So, no real threat to doctrine IMO just a threat to the political status quo.


This entire thread is rife with ignorance and is nothing more then anti-Christian propaganda. Someone with an agenda to discredit Christianity by a lame attempt to discredit the bible, while failing to realize that the much of the same word is contained in the Hebrew and even Muslim texts.


Ignorant, perhaps, but agenda to discredit I most certainly reject.


Also the Church never tells anyone they cannot read those additional texts, as a matter of fact I was encouraged to read the Apocrypha and Pseudopigraphica, they simply say that those texts do not hold the same authority as the cannon. In other words, the opinion is that many of those texts are ok to read, but they do not add anything to main message of the Bible, which is salvation. Read away, as long as you keep in mind that they should be read with a critical eye, and not held in the same authority as recognized texts, as their sources are questionable.


Thanks again. I was NOT aware that ALL of the texts were available to scholars. That is refreshing, but the years that I went to Church nothing has ever been put forward to me about this. Nothing, whatsoever. So pardon me.


the Vatican Library holds these texts

Are ALL the texts available? or just selected texts?

Who do we thank for being able to assess online the texts? Should we thank the Vatican? And what about the lost books? The ones that have been lost and then found again or viceversa... ?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777


If Rome had the power to change the Bible, then perhaps you can explain how the reformation occurred as Rome would have simply changed the bible again to disprove Martin Luther?


No, the powers that be, just shot him! I have a dream BANG...shortlived but the legacy lives on. Martin Luther King did not state his cause was based on divine intervention. So, no real threat to doctrine IMO just a threat to the political status quo.

Eh no Martin Luther was the guy that started the PROTESTANT REFORMATION not Martin Luther KING.
On subject just a wee note - It was Bishop Irenaeus in around 170 CE that was the main man on stating the the four synoptic gospels were authentic while all the others were blasphemous, thats why there are only four.
However check this outlink.



G



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Eh no Martin Luther was the guy that started the PROTESTANT REFORMATION not Martin Luther KING.

lol *googling Martin Luther right now...



It was Bishop Irenaeus in around 170 CE that was the main man on stating the the four synoptic gospels were authentic while all the others were blasphemous, thats why there are only four.
However check this outlink.
G


Bishop Irenaeus? Ok *googling Bishop Irenaeus next

thanks for info...



edit: From the link I clicked on another link which took me to this:
www.biblicalstudies.org.uk...
Now apparently, the Gospel of Q combined with Gospel of Thomas gives 'biblical basis for persons who do not accept Jesus as the Son of GOD.' It claims that around AD 65 Q may have been written at the same time as Luke, Matthew and John, but what I found interesting is at the early time, there were Jesus people and Christians. Those 'Jesus people' = Q and did not chose Jesus death and resurrection as a focal point and held Jesus to be no more than a sage. Well, that is adverse to the other scriptures and in that article it suggests Q creates problems. Of course, it would. This was quite timely, as last night I was in Yahoo and chatting to a Muslim and he was adamant that Jesus was not the Son of GOD, contrary to my beliefs. They see him as a Prophet and when you look at this article written at the same time as other gospels, perhaps this is where the differences started? Very interesting info, so thanks again.




[edit on 14-10-2006 by NJE777]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   


You can't add to a book like the bible because it breaks the logic of it being a holy book. If you can add stuff to it now, then, what exactly, everything before was incomplete or even wrong?


First remember that the WRITTEN gospels did not come into play until ca. 170-180 CE.
Prior to that they were nothing more than letters, notes and diaries written to and passed between various underground organizations. There was no organized Church.
each little group followed a "preacher "that claimed some form of illumination.




Also, lets be realistic here, its not like the church fathers willy nilly decided what goes in and what stays out.

actually that is pretty much exactly how it worked. Only it was pretty much one
bishop ca. 170-180 CE. Bishop Irenaeus. The council@Nicea pretty much just
accepted what he had listed.




I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a heretic,

It was as I recall at the Nicean council that the term was first used. Again as I recall
it was Bishop Arius to whom the term was applied, ( meaning to choose.) It was also
Arius who was beaten unconsious to silence his opposition to several issues at hand,
one being the divinity of the R. Jeshua.




and is the first material evidence that St Matthews Gospel was written during the lifetime of Jesus Christ.

Matthew's writings (and there is no substantive evidence that anyone named Matthew
had anything to do with the writting of this "gospel") were in all probibility written by
or at least copied by a follower of paul. Mark and Luke were based on Matthew.
Of the 4 "gospels" John is the only original work. Again there is no evidence that it was penned by anyone named John. There is however a deal of suggestive evidence
that it was written by one of 3 other people who are identified both internally and externally. Lazarus, Mary called Magdalene, and Johanna a companion of Marys.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
Thank you. You state many of the books were omitted based on suggested valid reasons...but that isnt ALL of them, is it?


Yes all books have a reason why they were not included, whether it be that they were not known about at the time, from a questionable source, contained errors, were propaganda, were in direct conflict with known authentic books, or added nothing of value to the existing cannon.

You can look up the reason that each book of interest was not included, its not some big forbidden secret.

By way of example:


The Book of Enoch was banned as heretical by later Church fathers mainly because of its theme concerning the nature and actions of the fallen angels. In fact, the material infuriated some Church fathers; and some rabbi even would not give credence to it. Probably it was considered such a sacrilege that it was denounced, cursed, banned, and no doubt burned and shredded.


The main argument among the Christian Church that lead to the removal of the book from consideration as cannon seems to center around the question of whether or not angles and humans can have sex and produce offspring. Enoch is one of the books that should most likely be included in the cannon as there is much evidence that it was studied by Christ himself, and because it is quoted several times in the existing bible, namely in Gen 6, and Jude.



Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch.
Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"--the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.
There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.


The thing is though, even if it were included, does it add anything to the main message of the Bible? The answer to this is in fact no. The book of Enoch is only useful as a historical style of text, it does nothing to add to the Christian message of salvation and thus adds nothing in its being included other then some extra background filler. Considering that most Christians have never read the entire bible, why add extra filler that is not really needed anyway? After all if someone is that interested in the information they can easily find a copy in a store or even online.

There are other books that I feel hold far greater merit and yet were not included for various reasons, the book of Adam and Eve and the Book of Nicodemus being two of them.

Here is a wiki to a TV show on the topic, they give some of the reasons certain books were not included: Banned from the Bible



Originally posted by NJE777
I do, sincerely hope that the choices made were not made for sinister reasons. But, how are we to know?


Simple, read them if your interested in them, and read the reasons they were excluded. Most sites list the background before the actual text. Earth History is a good place to start.


Originally posted by NJE777
I respect your defense, really I do and I thank you for it. But, as for being anti-Christian! that is something I am not, nor is my intention ill meant. I am a Christian, thank you.


I am sorry about the misunderstanding, but the normal MO around here is to pick apart Christianity by picking on the validity of the Bible.


Originally posted by NJE777
Don't you ever consider that with all the conflict and dissent surrounding Jesus Christ at not only the time of birth, but during his life and cruxifiction that perhaps, just maybe, it has been diluted/manipulated? Do I just pick up my Holy Bible and say this is it?? Am I wrong to question?


And this is exactly the reason that the Church filtered some of these texts out. They were obvious propaganda either pro or anti Christian, and thus removed.


Originally posted by NJE777
No, the powers that be, just shot him! I have a dream BANG...shortlived but the legacy lives on. Martin Luther King did not state his cause was based on divine intervention. So, no real threat to doctrine IMO just a threat to the political status quo.


Shihulud got the right guy. The Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther, this is a different person the Dr Martin Luther King Jr.


Originally posted by NJE777
I was NOT aware that ALL of the texts were available to scholars.


All the texts are available to anyone that is interested, not just scholars. Most Seminary students have to read and be familiar with these styles of texts so they can answer parishioner’s questions if they come in contact with them.


Originally posted by NJE777
That is refreshing, but the years that I went to Church nothing has ever been put forward to me about this.


They are not going to advertise them as they do not consider them important to your salvation, nor are they considered the Inspired Word of God. Believe it or not, most people really don’t care enough to look that deeply into religion and so they never even know of their existence.


Originally posted by NJE777
Are ALL the texts available? or just selected texts?


There may be some that the Vatican sits on, there may be some that have gotten lost over time, I would have to look into each one of them to see. Still you must remember that there are countless books that have been lost over the centuries, that in itself does not denote a conspiracy.

If there are books that are being withheld for any other reason its because they have teachings in them that are detrimental to your faith and salvation. The book of Thomas is a prime example. It shows a Christ that sinned as a boy, which conflicts GREATLY with all other canonical texts of the Bible, as Christ HAS to be a sinless sacrifice in order to grant us forgiveness from our sins. This is besides the fact that it is considered to have been written to late to be anything more then a propaganda paper. You must understand there were as many people back in those days that wished to deny the divinity of Christ as there are today. One of the largest groups pushing this were the Rabbinical Jews themselves as they were the ones who had Christ put to death.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join